> The Hebrew root is not isolated, it is not a GALMUD גלמוד ; it > has an extended family. It appears to me that the root XLD חלד is a > variant of גלד, גלש> חלד, חלז, חלט, חלץ, חלש> *קלד, קלט, קלס, קלש>> >and that XLD means essentially 'encrusted, solid'. It is not >absolutely clear what the biblical XOLED is, but it is possibly an >encrusted or shelled animal, or reptile, such as our CAB צב or >XILAZON חלזון from the root חלז (or possibly GALASH), that is >enclosed in a GELED גלד shell, from which it NEXLAC נחלץ and >into which it NIQLAT נקלט >The post-biblical XALUDAH (possibly influenced by Greek) is an oxide >GELED or tarnish. It appears to me related to XELAH חלאה
> Isaac Fried, Boston university isaac, i doubt it whether there is ANY common denominator between ALL these words (except maybe GULA$...? :) ) your argument for it is somewhat arbitrary, too. most of our daily experience is with encrusted and/or solid objects. most of them, like EC, EVEN, QIR, CUQ, QERAX, E$ET (i hope by now my spelling is more correct) are not derived from these roots. not even the word MUCAQ. so why would "encrusted, solid" characterize the feeble XILAZON and not the solid E$ET? finally, if indeed XELED really belongs to the class of words describing abstract colossal concepts (like "life", "world", "time" etc), i would hardly expect it to derive from this or that material quality, to the exclusion of the other material properties (here, excluding MAIM and $AMAIM, among others. which, according to Gen. 1, were supposedly at the very beginning of it all... ...AND assuming that XELED refers to the material world, a fact which not all of us accept in the first place. nir cohen _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
