[b-hebrew] Isaiah 53:8 lamo

[Vadim Cherny]

Of the 57 verses where LMW is found, the vast majority have the LMW in the ordinate state (did I name it right?), hence the vowel under the prefix L- will be lengthened. <

Vice-versa, lamo is absolute, lmo is derivative smihut form.

Within Biblical Hebrew itself, there is no clue that the -MW suffix existed as other than a unit which, from its use, can be for a singular even though it is more often used for a plural. <

Besides the fact that all lamo refer to plural, you need to dwell into etymology of lamo to understand why it relates to plural.

Vadim Cherny

[Peter Kirk]

...
Besides the fact that all lamo refer to plural, ...

This, if you remember, was the original point at issue. The argument was
that in Isaiah 53:8 and several other places it is very difficult for
lamo to be plural.

... you need to dwell into etymology of lamo ...

Or speculate on the etymology of lamo. A derivation from lahem is
possible, but by no means certain.

[Vadim Cherny]

Post by Peter Kirk

Besides the fact that all lamo refer to plural, ...

This, if you remember, was the original point at issue. The argument was
that in Isaiah 53:8 and several other places it is very difficult for
lamo to be plural.

Not just plural, but collective plural: am, zvaot

Post by Peter Kirk

... you need to dwell into etymology of lamo ...

Or speculate on the etymology of lamo. A derivation from lahem is
possible, but by no means certain.

lhemo, actually, not lahem
Your argument about smihut, if correct, would only mean that lmo derived
from lamo. This says nothing about the meaning of either. To find out the
meaning, we need to establish the etymology.
As I wrote earlier, your example of lifnei demonstrates well that smihut
meaning is likely a considerable expansion. We cannot make conclusions as to
the meaning of lamo from the mere fact that derivative form (basically, a
preposition) lmo is used few times (only) as emphatic for singular.

Vadim Cherny

[Peter Kirk]

Post by Vadim Cherny
...
To find out the
meaning, we need to establish the etymology. ...

No, no, NO!!! Meaning is not established by etymology. Meaning is
established by usage in context. Etyomology can be a very dangerous
guide to meaning because of meaning shifts over centuries. The etymology
of the English word "nice" is from Latin "nescius" which means
"ignorant". But "nice" does not mean "ignorant".

Post by Vadim Cherny
...As I wrote earlier, your example of lifnei demonstrates well that smihut
meaning is likely a considerable expansion. We cannot make conclusions as to
the meaning of lamo from the mere fact that derivative form (basically, a
preposition) lmo is used few times (only) as emphatic for singular.

Agreed. Even if we agree that etymologically lamo and lmo form an
absolute/construct pair, that is a poor guide to meaning because the
meanings of the absolute and construct could have shifted apart.

[Vadim Cherny]

Post by Peter Kirk

Post by Vadim Cherny
To find out the
meaning, we need to establish the etymology. ...

No, no, NO!!! Meaning is not established by etymology. Meaning is
established by usage in context.

Everywhere but in Hebrew and to some extent in Chinese. Of course, modern
languages, for one, deviated from etymological meaning, and for another,
accumulated huge contexts. This does not work with Tanakh, where we have a
handful of lamo, and where, as in isaiah 53:8, it is the context that
depends on the meaning of lamo. Again, we have so little of the clear
context that the relation is the opposite: etymological meaning of the word
allows us to clarify the context. In this case, etymological meaning of lamo
as lhemo shows that nega is to people, not to the character.

Post by Peter Kirk
Agreed. Even if we agree that etymologically lamo and lmo form an
absolute/construct pair, that is a poor guide to meaning because the
meanings of the absolute and construct could have shifted apart.

btw, camoha besides cmo might help your smihut argument

Vadim Cherny

[Peter Kirk]

Post by Vadim Cherny

Post by Peter Kirk

Post by Vadim Cherny
To find out the
meaning, we need to establish the etymology. ...

No, no, NO!!! Meaning is not established by etymology. Meaning is
established by usage in context.

Everywhere but in Hebrew and to some extent in Chinese. Of course, modern
languages, for one, deviated from etymological meaning, and for another,
accumulated huge contexts. This does not work with Tanakh, ...

So, are you claiming that Hebrew was preserved by divine intervention
from the processes which affected all other human languages? Hebrew
already had centuries, maybe millennia of use before the Bible was
written and had plenty of time to accumulate "huge contexts" and
semantic shift. There are clear examples of semantic shift within
biblical Hebrew, just as in English and all modern languages, including
I am sure Chinese. One semantic shift within the Hebrew Bible itself is
with the word SARIYS, which clearly refers to castrated eunuchs in
Esther, but is used of married officials in Genesis e.g. 39:1. Perhaps
others can suggest Hebrew words whose meanings contrast clearly with
their apparent etymologies.

Well, `edut which we have been discussing is certainly an example of
this if it is really to be derived from `wd "repeat".

Post by Vadim Cherny
... where we have a
handful of lamo, and where, as in isaiah 53:8, it is the context that
depends on the meaning of lamo. Again, we have so little of the clear
context that the relation is the opposite: etymological meaning of the word
allows us to clarify the context. In this case, etymological meaning of lamo
as lhemo shows that nega is to people, not to the character.

In extreme cases where we don't know enough from the context and the
regular usage, we may have to look at the etymology as the best guide we
have - although that is not much use when the etymology is disputable,
as here. In this case the better guide is that lamo usually has a plural
or collective meaning, which makes a strictly singular referent in this
case less likely. But there is simply insufficient evidence to
completely rule out a singular referent.

[Vadim Cherny]

Post by Peter Kirk

Post by Vadim Cherny
Everywhere but in Hebrew and to some extent in Chinese. Of course, modern
languages, for one, deviated from etymological meaning, and for another,
accumulated huge contexts. This does not work with Tanakh, ...

So, are you claiming that Hebrew was preserved by divine intervention
from the processes which affected all other human languages? Hebrew
already had centuries, maybe millennia of use before the Bible was
written and had plenty of time to accumulate "huge contexts" and
semantic shift.

Had we possess these contexts now, I would agree with you. Since Tanakh is
more or less all we have from that time, other texts amounting to a fraction
of it, we have too little data for contextual analysis. Etymological
analysis is a better bet.
Had we the Library of Congress amount of data for Hebrew, I would agree with
you that we have to proceed contextually.

Post by Peter Kirk
In this case the better guide is that lamo usually has a plural
or collective meaning, which makes a strictly singular referent in this
case less likely. But there is simply insufficient evidence to
completely rule out a singular referent.

The hope dies the last... There are probably die-hard folks around who still
believe in geocentric universe. No amount of data produces an absolute proof
in liberal or empirical sciences. Only in the most simple mathematics a
binary proof exists. Even non-linear geometry includes uncertainty of proof.
Sure, we cannot "completely rule out a singular referent." It is just highly
improbable.

Recall the earlier discussion on bmotaw. Even though no references to mot in
intense plural are encountered in Tanakh, and the whole concept is
exceedingly odd, some people here argued for emphatic instead of admitting
bmotaw for what it clearly is, a plural of boma. Negative proof is
impossible.

Vadim Cherny

[Peter Kirk]

Post by Vadim Cherny

Post by Peter Kirk

Post by Vadim Cherny
Everywhere but in Hebrew and to some extent in Chinese. Of course, modern
languages, for one, deviated from etymological meaning, and for another,
accumulated huge contexts. This does not work with Tanakh, ...

So, are you claiming that Hebrew was preserved by divine intervention
from the processes which affected all other human languages? Hebrew
already had centuries, maybe millennia of use before the Bible was
written and had plenty of time to accumulate "huge contexts" and
semantic shift.

Had we possess these contexts now, I would agree with you. Since Tanakh is
more or less all we have from that time, other texts amounting to a fraction
of it, we have too little data for contextual analysis. Etymological
analysis is a better bet.
Had we the Library of Congress amount of data for Hebrew, I would agree with
you that we have to proceed contextually.

We don't have the contexts to work from, I agree. But they did exist in
ancient times, at least in spoken language if not in written. The
implication is that semantic shift did take place - even if we don't
have evidence of it. This implies that etymological analysis is
seriously flawed.

If you are not convinced, follow George's excellent advice and read
James Barr.

[Vadim Cherny]

Post by Peter Kirk

Post by Vadim Cherny
Had we possess these contexts now, I would agree with you. Since Tanakh is
more or less all we have from that time, other texts amounting to a fraction
of it, we have too little data for contextual analysis. Etymological
analysis is a better bet.
Had we the Library of Congress amount of data for Hebrew, I would agree with
you that we have to proceed contextually.

We don't have the contexts to work from, I agree. But they did exist in
ancient times, at least in spoken language if not in written. The
implication is that semantic shift did take place - even if we don't
have evidence of it. This implies that etymological analysis is
seriously flawed.

It only implies that etymological analysis "may" be flawed. In fact, Hebrew
etymology, due to the root system, is much more stable that in Germanic
languages.
No doubt, the contemporaries, speaking the living language, knew the correct
meaning contextually. We don't possess this knowledge. Our best bet is
etymological. Or do you think four (?) entries of lamo make a context?
I was learning English largely contextually, with little of formal grammar,
and from some point without vocabulary. I can tell you empirically that
meaning even of nouns is not clear from few instances. Service words, like
lamo, need dozens of instances to clarify the meaning. Etymology is the best
we have for Hebrew, though not without shortcomings.

Post by Peter Kirk
If you are not convinced, follow George's excellent advice and read
James Barr.

Why do you assume I didn't? Barr's most cherished concern is protection of
the sacred pasture of theology from outsiders. He is perfectly willing to
infuse his theological views in the semantics instead of reading the plain
text.

Vadim Cherny

[Peter Kirk]

Post by Vadim Cherny
...
It only implies that etymological analysis "may" be flawed. In fact, Hebrew
etymology, due to the root system, is much more stable that in Germanic
languages. ...

Really? This is a very surprising statement. Do you have any evidence
for it?

I can find a number of examples of semantic shift between cognates
within the Semitic triliteral system. A simple one is "shalom" = "peace"
(Hebrew) and "salaam" = "greetings" (Arabic). Semantically linked, of
course, but the Arabic meaning is significantly weakened.

Post by Vadim Cherny
No doubt, the contemporaries, speaking the living language, knew the correct
meaning contextually. We don't possess this knowledge. Our best bet is
etymological. Or do you think four (?) entries of lamo make a context? ...

Not four, but 55 for lamo plus four for lmo, which makes "dozens".
That's enough to establish regular usage, although not enough to be
certain that there are no exceptions.

Post by Vadim Cherny
... I was learning English largely contextually, with little of formal grammar,
and from some point without vocabulary. I can tell you empirically that
meaning even of nouns is not clear from few instances. Service words, like
lamo, need dozens of instances to clarify the meaning. Etymology is the best
we have for Hebrew, though not without shortcomings.

In some cases, something very bad is better than nothing at all. A crust
of dry bread is better than starvation. But that doesn't stop it being
very bad.

Post by Vadim Cherny

Post by Peter Kirk
If you are not convinced, follow George's excellent advice and read
James Barr.

Why do you assume I didn't? ...

[Vadim Cherny]

Post by Peter Kirk

Post by Vadim Cherny
It only implies that etymological analysis "may" be flawed. In fact, Hebrew
etymology, due to the root system, is much more stable that in Germanic
languages. ...

I can find a number of examples of semantic shift between cognates
within the Semitic triliteral system. A simple one is "shalom" = "peace"
(Hebrew) and "salaam" = "greetings" (Arabic). Semantically linked, of
course, but the Arabic meaning is significantly weakened.

Why go for Arabic? You have the same greeting in Hebrew. And it is perfectly
linked with the original sense in its proper form sholom aleiha.
Sure, many words in Hebrew drifted from the root meaning, but by far lesser
percentage than in other languages. A quick glance into etymological
dictionary would demonstrate that, in fact, few English words retained even
their OE meaning. Hebrew is much more robust.

Post by Peter Kirk

Post by Vadim Cherny
No doubt, the contemporaries, speaking the living language, knew the correct
meaning contextually. We don't possess this knowledge. Our best bet is
etymological. Or do you think four (?) entries of lamo make a context? ...

Not four, but 55 for lamo plus four for lmo, which makes "dozens".
That's enough to establish regular usage, although not enough to be
certain that there are no exceptions.

Yes, 55 entries is good enough to consider the context. I guess quite all of
them clearly refer to collective plural.

[Peter Kirk]

Post by Peter Kirk

Post by Vadim Cherny
It only implies that etymological analysis "may" be flawed. In fact,

Hebrew

Post by Peter Kirk

Post by Vadim Cherny
etymology, due to the root system, is much more stable that in Germanic
languages. ...

I can find a number of examples of semantic shift between cognates
within the Semitic triliteral system. A simple one is "shalom" = "peace"
(Hebrew) and "salaam" = "greetings" (Arabic). Semantically linked, of
course, but the Arabic meaning is significantly weakened.

Why go for Arabic? You have the same greeting in Hebrew. And it is perfectly
linked with the original sense in its proper form sholom aleiha.
Sure, many words in Hebrew drifted from the root meaning, but by far lesser
percentage than in other languages. A quick glance into etymological
dictionary would demonstrate that, in fact, few English words retained even
their OE meaning. Hebrew is much more robust.

Oh, come on! There is an obvious difference here: we have extensive Old
English texts and so we know about semantic shifts between OE and modern
English; but we don't have pre-biblical Hebrew texts and so we have no
data on pre-biblical semantic shift in Hebrew. We do have data for
post-biblical semantic shift, and that is significant, although
constrained by the authoritative status of the Bible. And we can compare
with other related languages e.g. Arabic (just as we can for example
compare English with German) and so get a good idea of how much semantic
shift there has been.

Anyway, very many English words retain their OE meaning, but there is a
semantic shift in a sizeable minority. Although evidence is limited, we
can expect to see a similar picture in Hebrew over the same time frame.

[George F Somsel]

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 14:31:07 +0200 "Vadim Cherny"

Post by Vadim Cherny

Post by Peter Kirk

Post by Vadim Cherny
To find out the
meaning, we need to establish the etymology. ...

No, no, NO!!! Meaning is not established by etymology. Meaning is
established by usage in context.

Everywhere but in Hebrew and to some extent in Chinese. Of course,
modern
languages, for one, deviated from etymological meaning, and for
another,
accumulated huge contexts. This does not work with Tanakh, where we
have a
handful of lamo, and where, as in isaiah 53:8, it is the context
that
depends on the meaning of lamo. Again, we have so little of the
clear
context that the relation is the opposite: etymological meaning of
the word
allows us to clarify the context. In this case, etymological meaning
of lamo
as lhemo shows that nega is to people, not to the character.

Post by Peter Kirk
Agreed. Even if we agree that etymologically lamo and lmo form an
absolute/construct pair, that is a poor guide to meaning because

the

Post by Peter Kirk
meanings of the absolute and construct could have shifted apart.

btw, camoha besides cmo might help your smihut argument
Vadim Cherny
_______________________________________________

The use of etymology to determine the meaning of words also does not work
in Greek so it's not just in Hebrew and Chinese that this fails to work.
I suggest that you read James Barr _The Semanitcs of Biblical Language_.

george
gfsomsel
___________

[Uri Hurwitz]

...

"...I can find a number of examples of semantic shift between cognates
within the Semitic triliteral system. A simple one is "shalom" = "peace"
(Hebrew) and "salaam" = "greetings" (Arabic). Semantically linked, of
course, but the Arabic meaning is significantly weakened"....

Two comments:

A. In Arabic too the root can clearly mean peace;( look up under "salaam", but also "silm");

B. In both languages the original meaning was probably "completeleness, fullness"; (again you'll find examples in both languages).

Uri

[Peter Kirk]

Post by Uri Hurwitz

...

"...I can find a number of examples of semantic shift between cognates
within the Semitic triliteral system. A simple one is "shalom" = "peace"
(Hebrew) and "salaam" = "greetings" (Arabic). Semantically linked, of
course, but the Arabic meaning is significantly weakened"....
A. In Arabic too the root can clearly mean peace;( look up under
"salaam", but also "silm");

Which proves my point: even within a language with triliteral roots
there can be significant semantic shift.

Post by Uri Hurwitz
B. In both languages the original meaning was probably
"completeleness, fullness"; (again you'll find examples in both
languages).

Again this proves my point: the etymological or "original" meaning is
not a good guide to current meaning.

[Uri Hurwitz]

..."... In both languages the original meaning was probably
"completeleness, fullness"; (again you'll find examples in both
languages)."

To which Peter responded:
Again this proves my point: the etymological or "original" meaning is
not a good guide to current meaning.

UH: Not in the MT where you'll find many examples of the original meaning of ShLM "completion" both in verbs, e.g. 1 Kings 7:51 -- watishlam kol hamelakha , or nouns e.g. "shelamim" a type of sacrifice.

Uri

[Peter Kirk]

Post by Peter Kirk

..."... In both languages the original meaning was probably
"completeleness, fullness"; (again you'll find examples in both
languages)."

Again this proves my point: the etymological or "original" meaning is
not a good guide to current meaning.
UH: Not in the MT where you'll find many examples of the
original meaning of ShLM "completion" both in verbs, e.g. 1
Kings 7:51 -- watishlam kol hamelakha , or nouns e.g. "shelamim" a
type of sacrifice.
Uri

Again, this proves my point. The semantics of the ShLM root in Hebrew
are very varied because of semantic shift. Words from this root can mean
"completion", "peace", "greeting" and a kind of sacrifice (and that's
just a start). It is a serious mistake to try to force these different
senses of different words into one meaning. Older translations tried
this by calling this sacrifice a "peace offering", but scholars have
realised that this is a misunderstanding, and so this translation has
now been abandoned.

[Bill Rea]

Peter wrote:-

The semantics of the ShLM root in Hebrew are very varied ...

[snip]

Older translations tried this by calling this sacrifice a "peace
offering", but scholars have realised that this is a misunderstanding,
and so this translation has now been abandoned.

What do they consider it to be now?

Thanks.

Bill Rea, IT Services, Canterbury University \_
E-Mail ***@canterbury.ac.nz </ New
Phone [phone], Fax [phone] /) Zealand
Unix Systems Administrator (/'

[Peter Kirk]

Post by Bill Rea
Peter wrote:-

The semantics of the ShLM root in Hebrew are very varied ...

[snip]

Older translations tried this by calling this sacrifice a "peace
offering", but scholars have realised that this is a misunderstanding,
and so this translation has now been abandoned.

What do they consider it to be now?

The translation "fellowship offering" is more in vogue. But the best way
to find out what this offering is is to read the passages describing it,
Leviticus 3 and 7:11-21, and other accounts.