Hi Karl, Why would lead be the preferred material in modern construction only? You don't need formal modern physics concepts as "density" and "inertia" to think out that heavier equals better for this purpose. And you need only a hand to find out that lead is heavier.
I agree that etymology is not important in itself, but the point of departure of this question is that we simply don't know what Amos saw. We only know that he denoted it אֲנךְ, and at least from the 10th-12th century the meaning is believed to be "plumb line". We don't even know if it was a tool at all. So it's not that I'm using etymology to disprove something that is otherwise straightforward (which I agree would be a bit silly); I just point out a weakness in one interpretation. Furthermore, it looks like etymology contributed or even led to the "plumb line" interpretation in the first place. Regards, Daniel >________________________________ > From: K Randolph <[email protected]> >To: Daniel Lundsgaard Skovenborg <[email protected]> >Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 5:54 AM >Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] When did )NK in Amos 7:7f become interpreted as "plumb >line"? > > >Daniel: > > >It looks as if you are taking a modern approach to this question. > > >What matters is that there is a weight at the bottom of a line that holds it >straight for construction purposes. What the exact composition of that weight >is not important. In modern construction, lead is the preferred material for >the reasons you mention, but was that always the case? The exact etymology of >the term is irrelevant, the action that it refers to is the deciding factor. > > >Yours, Karl W. Randolph. > > >On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 12:16 AM, Daniel Lundsgaard Skovenborg ><[email protected]> wrote: > >Hi Karl, >> >> >>I skipped a lot of aspects of the discussion that led to the initial >>question, so my point was probably not clear: >>The tin/lead discussion is not only concerning the material of אֲנךְ, but >>also wether it is a tool at all. So my point is: I find it less plausible >>that a plumb line would be named after tin, because I think lead would be >>cheaper and intuitively better for the job (see below). So if annaku is "tin" >>it weakens the possibility that אֲנךְ is a plumb line. And even if it is >>true, we do not seem to have evidence that אֲנךְ was interpreted as "plumb >>line" before the 10th century. >> >> >>Admittedly, I'm not a craftsman, but I don't think the density of lead is >>something that is only relevant for "modern usage". You don't need a physics >>concepts as "density" to know that "lead is heavy" (in Danish we have a >>common expression, "blytung", i.e. "heavy as lead"). And I believe it is >>quite intuitive that heavier equals more stable (depending on the situation, >>of course). The job of the weight is not only to hold the line straight but >>also as unwavering and unaffected by the wind (in short, vertical) as >>possible. >> >>Regards, >>Daniel >> >> >> >> >>>________________________________ >>> From: K Randolph <[email protected]> >>>To: Daniel Lundsgaard Skovenborg <[email protected]> >>>Cc: Yigal Levin <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" >>><[email protected]> >>>Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 12:17 AM >>> >>>Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] When did )NK in Amos 7:7f become interpreted as >>>"plumb line"? >>> >>> >>>Daniel: >>> >>> >>>The question here, what was the tool used for? >>> >>> >>>The advantage of lead, in modern usage, is its density, but any weight can >>>be used and the tool is stil functional. It doesn’t matter what the tool’s >>>weight is made of, if it holds the line straight, it does its job. If it is >>>true as you say that the original weight was made of tin, hence its name in >>>Akkadian, it is best to translate it not by the name “tin” rather as >>>“ plumb-line” in English, even though “plumb” refers to lead. >>> >>> >>>It is function that we look for, not form. >>> >>> >>>Karl W. Randolph. >>> >>> >>>On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 6:20 AM, Daniel Lundsgaard Skovenborg >>><[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>Hi Yigal, >>>> >>>> >>>>Thanks! >>>> >>>>Of course tin or a wooden brick or whatever could have been used for such a >>>>tool, but if the Akkadian word gave name to the tool, I think it must mean >>>>"lead" (tin is normally בְדִיל and lead עֹפֶרֶת, so maybe אֲנָךְ was used >>>>only as a technical term, if we suppose it is a tool). Or to put it another >>>>way: if annaku means "tin" I don't think it would give name to this tool, >>>>unless it through "usage mistakes" came to mean "lead" when entering Hebrew: >>>>1. Lead is special because it has a high density (tin is similar to iron in >>>>this regard). You want as much inertia as possible for this tool – if it is >>>>not stable it does not work properly. >>>>2. According to Landsberger lead is way cheaper than tin. >>>> >>>>Regards, >>>>Daniel Lundsgaard Skovenborg >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> > > > _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
