Randall and Karl, I beg to differ with both of you. There are a number of different roots from which any word spelled (רעיון) Ra(YoN may have evolved:
Those derived from a literal meaning of "to spread out / disperse": 1a - RooW(a (רוע) - found in the hiphil "to sound an alarm" and t'RooW(ah (תרועה) shout, alarm 1b - Ra(a( - (רעע) to shout 2a - Ra(aH (רעה) - to put out to pasture / feed, graze, to lead, go out with ((2ai YaRa( (ירע)- to move back and forth)) -- NOT A POTENTIAL SOURCE 2b - Ra(a( (רעע) - to VIBRATE (move back and forth), shatter, be broken down, be impaired, treat badly, be displeasing Those derived from a literal meaning of "receive / perceive" 3a - Ra( (רע) - perception, thought 3b - Ra(aH (רעה) - to welcome, befriend, desire, take delight in, enjoy In all probability, both uses in Qohelet come from 3b: "taking delight in the wind" = >>>> futility "taking delight of his heart" = >>>> the labor of the heart Cordially, David Kolinsky Monterey, CA --- On Mon, 3/14/11, Randall Buth <[email protected]> wrote: From: Randall Buth <[email protected]> Subject: [b-hebrew] ra`yon and `inyan and what can be learned To: "Hebrew" <[email protected]> Date: Monday, March 14, 2011, 5:39 AM A couple of items in a recent thread caught my eye as good examples for teaching about words, etymology, and relations with the larger language communities in antiquity. We will look at the etymologies, and after both words are discussed, look at the broader picture. >> רעיון 'thought' Q 2.22 and in mishnaic Hebrew >[Karl:] > This is a common ending to change a verb or adjective > to a noun, ... Also found in 1:17 and > 4:16, and all three times meaning “displeasure” > from the root רעע R((. Here is a recourse to etymology, though the etymology is linguistically wrong. The root should be specified as ר.ע.י r.`.y., 'to guide to pasture; to join with', not ר.ע.ע r.`.`. The point here, of course, is that etymology is a very subjective matter, and not a good way or reliable way to go about establishing contextual meaning, especially if the word was in common use in the continuing language community, and in the surrounding linguistic communities. This word may have more than one meaning. Qoh 2.22 appears to refer to 'the considerations of the mind (heart), thoughts' (Old Greek προαιρεσις 'decisions/purposings') This meaning may fit ra`yon ruaH, too, where the 'thoughts of the wind' would be another metaphor for worthlessness. However, this is also a wordplay with רעות רוח r`ut ruaH 'joining the wind, striving after the wind'. In addition, we find the word in use in Aramaic, even in the Bible, Dan 2.29, where it refers to thoughts and meditation. That too, is helpful information that can be weighed. It certainly lines up with the meaning 'thoughts, consideration' and not with the mis-etymologized and invented 'displeasure'. [For interest, modern Hebrew has developed another, related meaning: "idea". This does not determine earlier meaning, but it does show how a trajectory of a word may work through a language. Tracing a trajectory is helpful, because it may be part of a chain and is helpful for studying vocabulary in every language.] What we see with ra`yon is the positive value in knowing a. the context, b. the correct root(s), c. ancient testimony, d. community use, and e. ancient cognate use. All of these line up in this case to paint a unified picture. The data on ra`yon could be expanded, but this outlines the principles and corrects "displeasure". >> ענין 'affair' 8xx Q and in mishnaic Hebrew > >This has a suffix that changes a verb to a noun, also used by דמין > DMYN, פדין PDYN, קנין QNYN, and its uses fit the meaning of > humiliating, being humbled from the verb ענה (NH. Here is a word that is fairly frequent in Qohelet, ענין `inyan. It apparently meant 'business, activity' Qoh 2.26 where it refers to business interests and activity. In 5.13 someone loses their wealth through bad `inyan, through bad business (contextually, this would not be through 'evil business, fraud', but to 'unlucky' business losses. Qoh is dealing with examples that are sometimes outside of a cause-and-effect morality). Again, it is useful to trace the historical trajectory of this word. In Mishnaic Hebrew it continued with this meaning and developed an additional meaning "subject matter", the "activity under discussion". Incidentally, the word was also common in Aramaic `enyan, where it also meant "concern, affair". On the other hand, Karl proposed that it meant 'humiliation' based on etymology with one of the verbs/meanings `.n.y. Now etymology is a very subjective matter, and not a good way to go about establishing contextual meaning, especially if the word was in common use in the continuing language community, and in the surrounding linguistic communities. The verb(s) `.n.y. (probably homonyms, in some cases from different roots with two kinds of `ayin) can mean 'respond, answer; sing; suffer; to deal with something, work with; and possible 'to sprout' (Hos 2.17, 24); also in pi`el 'to afflict, do violence against; hif`il humiliate, and more. As far as I'm aware, no one in the ancient community ever used `inyan as 'humiliation'. The Old Greek translators used 'busy-ness, distracting activity'. Mishnaic Hebrew commonly used it, and it is still used today for "acitvity, subject matter, interest'. Again, as with ra`yon, Aramaic used it with a similar meaning. `inyan is not considered one of the 'unknown words' that needs guess work to re-establish a new meaning in the Bible. 'Humiliation' does not fit the context as well, and does not explain how and why the language community dropped the alleged meaning, only to use the word in a different meaning. Plus, this meaning fits the cognate language Aramaic. So 'business' does not create an extra, unnecessary, and unanswered question. So what do we see in Qohelet? We see two words whose meanings fit a context and were preserved in the Hebrew community and that were also in use in the Aramaic community. Neither word made it into the Bible outside of Qohelet, (though ra`yon does occur in Daniel in Aramaic), but both words were considered 'common' and well known in later Hebrew and in Aramaic. They do NOT PROVE that Qohelet was a 2T work, I agree with Karl on that. But they certainly fit an expected profile if it were true that Qohelet was 2T. Karl should probably agree with that. They are two strands that can be used in making a much stronger rope. By themselves, they are two strands, but joined with a long list they become a stronger and stronger argument. Never absolute proof, just stronger and stronger. It is certainly remarkable that if the document were written in the tenth century BCE, that it would have so many features that accidentally pattern as 2T (See commentaries for discussion at length.) People may consider at what point they re-consider their interpretation of the contents and the intention of the author to most easily fit these pictures. But back to language, these two words show value and consistency when interpreted within the text, within the fuller and correct linguistic matrix (with the multiple, correct etymological possibilities), with the ancient communities using the text, with the later direct descendent of the language community (Mishnaic Hebrew), and the cognate language communities known to be in very close and even bilingual contact over a millenium (Aramaic). (PS: even Solomon could easily have known OldAramaic, though we don't know exactly when `inyan developed in either Hebrew or Aramaic. My guess is that he understood Hirom's Phoenician in any case.) The point is that the above two words have a consistent and unified meaning attested multiple times and in multiple ways that cannot and should not be thrown out and replaced by imaginative and unnecessary etymology, whether in error (r.`.`.) or overly restrictive ('humiliation'). It is easier to process all of this if one would internalize a BH dialect, but that is separate thread. That remains my recommendation to any wanting to read, appreciate, and work with BH, or with any dialect of Hebrew. Certainly, Isaiah or Zechariah would have had negligible difficulty, if any at all, with Ben Sira, though with the developed low language (Mishnaic Hebrew) they would have probably had their ears jostled at the beginning of their contact. ילמדו כלם שפת כנען yilmedu kullam sfat Kna`an או עברית ככנות בן סירה o `ivrit kexannot ben sira. ברכות יוחנן Randall Buth -- Randall Buth, PhD www.biblicallanguagecenter.com Biblical Language Center Learn Easily - Progress Further - Remember for Life _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
