I consider it as a fundamental tenet of Hebrew Etymology that there need be no "horizontal" relationships between different Hebrew words derived from the same root, let alone from different roots. As I see it, there is no associative relationship between $BIYL, 'path', and $ABLUL, 'snail'; the snail does not leave a trail, or some such thing. Similarly, I don't see an associative, or horizontal, relationship among $UAL, 'fox', of Song of Songs 2:15, MI$OL, 'path', of Nu. 22:24, and $OAL, 'hollow of the hand', of Is. 40:12. Nor between KPIYR, 'lion', (which I consider a variant of KBIYR, 'huge') of Jud. 14:5, and KPOR, 'hoarfrost', (which I consider a variant of QBOR, 'cover, bury') of Ex. 16:14. It is true that the coiners of new Hebrew words disregard this limitation, for instance, from ZXL, 'slide, creep', they recently produced ZAXLIYL, 'tractor-tank', (DAXLIYL, 'scarecrow', is I believe, from Aramaic). But not so in the Hebrew bible: SAGRIYR of Prov. 27:15 has apparently nothing to do with SGR, 'close'.
Isaac Fried, Boston University On Jun 5, 2011, at 4:17 PM, Nir cohen - Prof. Mat. wrote: > > i was not getting into etymology at all, i was just trying to > understand the point in isaac' question, which still escapes me. > some of the associations he makes with BH are clearly much more far- > fetched than the one i was making (independent of its veracity). > yet he was alarmed by this one. _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
