Appreciate the link to the Schmid review: despite any weaknesses the book might have, it's still written well. The reviewer acknowledged as much.
For the Temple Presence book, I'm going to quote what the author says about the book's methodology. Unfortunately, the tome does not have an index:
"For practical purposes, the sources will be delimited to the following: (1) Works likely predating Revelation include Tobit, 1–2 Enoch, Sibylline Oracle 3, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Jubilees, 2 Ezekiel, and the Qumran Sectarian documents. (2) Sources roughly contemporaneous with the time frame in which Revelation was composed include the Similitudes of 1 Enoch, Sibylline Oracles 1–2, 4–5, 4 Ezra (2 Esdras), 1–3 Baruch, the Apocalypse of Abraham, Pseudo-Philo, and the Ezekiel Targum. Although the Mishnah was compiled after the book of Revelation, the volume reflects traditions of the previous four centuries. Additionally, tractate Middoth, in which a temple plan is outlined, was composed soon after the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple, placing the document in the same time frame as Revelation. Therefore, the Mishnah will be included in the analysis."
Robinson, Andrea L. Temple of Presence: The Christological Fulfillment of Ezekiel 40–48 in Revelation 21:1—22:5 (Kindle Locations 339-346). Wipf & Stock, an Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers. Kindle Edition.
I have read Harris' entire grammar, which took me months to do, but I have not been through the workbook yet although I do have it. So, I cannot say for sure whether you should get the workbook or not, but it's very inexpensive on Kindle and Harris normally does a first-rate job with her works.
The only grammar good I've gone through is David Allan Back, (for Hebrew I use Page H. Kelly's), I find language difficult to pick up. Anyway, it might be time to go back and brush up.
Black's grammar is good: I like the way he teaches. As you likely know, the "standard" NT grammar for many NT Greek students is Bill Mounce's work. Some still use the old Machen text. I have Stan Porter's (et al.) intro work for Greek. It's very informative and helpful, but some have criticized the way he introduces verbs.
IMHO, I believe the Zondervan intro Hebrew text is good, but I'm more into Greek and Latin.
For classical Greek, two highly recommended texts in my estimation are Donald Mastronarde and the Athenaze text.
Thank for the Cambridge link. It looks exciting and like something definitely worth having for students of Hebrew.
Appreciate the other links too, Duncan.
When I talk about "grammar" in this context, I'm referring to books, which should be distinguished from the language itself, whether Hebrew, Greek, etc. Either way, I get what you're saying about "grammars." But could that not be said of other languages, including English?
I'm going to ee what Dr Hornkohl says about Hebrew and culture. At the outset, I want to point out that culture is important, no doubt, but so is learning syntax, morphology, word meanings and so forth. There is no getting around learning what a participle is and how it functions, etc. I don't think Hornkohl would disagree.
English by region or time varies significantly so morphology is a fluid concept. Also note what he has to say regarding reading Hebrew without vowel pointings. Something I endeavoured to do from the outset of my journey. Also note his mention of the construct state, again not so tied to rules as many would like.
The idea of a participle is fairly universal, but on a case by case basis not so rigid. All of the aspects of the cultural sphere need to be applied, but is that achievable in such ancient research? There is much guess work and appeal to perceived authority. Translations built on translations. We work with what we have but that is not static.
I also spotted Buth in the audience but no lecture at this event.
I'm not dogmatic at all about how many roots Hebrew has, but the link you provided stated that Rashi did not deny the 3-letter view although he posited a 2-letter view as well. One Hebrew reference grammar I have states that Hebrew normally forms words from 2 consonants although there are irregular forms.
Secondly, I'm wondering about examples like s-l-m in Hebrew, which one also finds in Arabic.
Morphology in English, Greek, Latin, Hebrew is fluid to an extent; not just anything goes. Some formations are clearly wrong but I will admit that English (etc.) has some variation. Furthermore, like other languages, English had diachronic changes.
I will listen to what he has to say about the construct state: sounds like he might be more of a descriptivist when it comes to grammar.
Because these languages are so old (Hebrew, Greek, Latin,), there will be gaps and guesswork, to be sure. But is the definition and classification of a participle just up in the air? In Latin, I know that esse is not a participle but cogitans is; ago is not a participle but extensa is.
We've had this conversation before about what we can/cannot know about ancient biblical languages. As you might remember, I think skepticism runs too rampant in biblical studies. Yeah, we have much to learn, but it doesn't stop us from making definite claims about most things.
Anything wrong with being a descriptivist? I don't think so. When translating I would never use a set of 'rules'. There are many controversial passages, but I think that they are translatable, however, I don't agree with Tov on the MT default position.
S-l-m in Arabic does not have the same meaning, how does one prove the ancient connection?
When it comes to Tov talking about bad spelling in the DSS Isaiah scroll making it a less reliable version, would the same be said of the Tyndale bible? Later works are more formalised, not sure it makes them more accurate though.
Duncan, I don't think it's wrong to be a descriptivist or a prescriptivist. Personally, I think we need them both. My comment was just A personal opinion with no intent to put him down.
Translation requires some rules just like driving or giving eloquent talks do. Language in general needs rules.
My view of OT translation is a modified MT approach. If s-l-m is not the same as in Arabic, then what about salam and salem?
The Wikipedia entry technically does not say that s-l-m was already a name, but contained in a name.
My point about salem/shalim and salam is that they're built from the same root. Arabic has its own unique features, but its part of the same language family as Hebrew.
I wouldn't be surprised to find A similar example in Akkadian
"A root is usually stable across all the forms in a lexical item; grammatical distinctions between these forms correspond to different patterns. Thus, lexical items are classified in biliteral, triliteral, quadriliteral, quinqueliteral depending on the number of letters in their root. The general principles of root-and-pattern morphology are ubiquitous in the Arabic-speaking world and are taught in school. This representation is well established in Arabic morphology and seems well founded."
To be clear, I'm not making the claim that Arabic does not have its own unique features, but the language belongs to the Semitic family and Arabic shares terms/words with Hebrew. These facts are pretty much indisputable.
I am just pointing out that Arabic has is own biliteral, and the evidence (?) Indicates that the older strata of Hebrew, Egyptian and Arabic have the expansion over time. Arabic as a living language has expanded further. I would not call Coptic a living language, but it still has some use and did expand. So S-L-M may be considered a root of origin, but that may not be the case. I find in modern languages a word that is common is not usually because of a common origin but because it is easier to adopt a word and its meaning, than invent your own. One exception is Welsh, they never seem to adopt new English words without modification.
"1) consonants are rarely doubled in words but the second and third very often doubled.
2) triliteral words are harder to pronounce with one vowel patterns (qatl, qitl, qutl) but perfectly fit in biliteral words.
3) a true triliteral independent roots expected to show some vowel “gravity” meaning in the third consonant, but in fact as regard to the vowel patterns the third consonant is always marginal.
4) tetraliteral roots are usually a doubled biliteral root or doubled third consonant. There are few roots that integrated a middle consonant (ר and ל usually) but the added consonant always is a non meaning bearing in the vowel pattern."
To reiterate, this is not a hot button issue with me: two or three roots does not really matter to me, but most of what I read about the subject says three roots with some variation. And I learned the point about s-l-m way back when, but if Shalim/shalom/Salem and salam don't all have s-l-m in common as a root, then please explain the common thread between those words. Islam in Arabic is another example. Too many examples, even in Akkadian, to be a coincidence.
It's the difference between reading about it and reading it. I am in the same boat when it comes to Greek 🧐. When reading Hebrew you can see how some roots have been padded with letters for the trilieral system. It's fascinating especially when you look into the evidence for additional characters in the alephbet that have disappeared. When melchisedek was king of Salem, how do we know that term even ment the same, basically we don't.
"Let us be clear. The etymological (linguistic) root of the word ‘Islam’ is not ‘salam’ (peace). It is the verb ‘salima,’ which means to find security, safety, or even a deeper sense of wellbeing. The word ‘salam’ is derived from that same verb salima, just like the word ‘Islam’ is derived from it. But in the case of ‘Islam,’ it is the so-called Form IV of the verb, aslama, from which it derives more directly. So in a sense, Islam is salam’s sibling, rather than its child. One child, Salam, goes on to express meanings of peace, wellbeing, good neighborliness and hospitality. Whereas the other child, Islam, moves on to generate derivatives of power, such as submission and surrender, with the purpose of finding safety and security. They are certainly close linguistic relatives, they influence each other mutually, but they cannot simply be merged."
Keep in mind just how many times you have quoted at me about Hebrew etymology and roots and the claims that two words with trilingual roots that appear to be the same are not in fact the same, but rather one could be a loan word. Now I require solid proofs for those claims, but words in two anciently related languages is a different matter. We get similar claims about the info European aspects of words, we even get claims of edenics.
I spend more time with Greek and Latin for practical reasons, but I have been working on my Hebrew some recently, but I also figure that scholars of the language know much more about Hebrew/Semitic languages than I do. So, while I grasp your point about reading versus reading about, most sources I consult state that s-l-m is a common Semitic root and I thought Wikipedia gave plenty of examples although books on the subject do similarly. And I understand that none of these things are universally held and there are exceptions to the rules. But the salem example seems as plain to me one one can get.
My claim about the word Islam was actually that the root is the same as Shalom, Salem, etc. I will cite evience for what I said about Islam.
See https://books.google.com/books?id=EDeuEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA3&dq=does+the+word+Islam+derive+from+the+semitic+root+slm?&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwie4NzJ5-H-AhWfk2oFHf-LBeMQ6AF6BAgEEAI#v=onepage&q=does%20the%20word%20Islam%20derive%20from%20the%20semitic%20root%20slm%3F&f=false
and a multiplicity of books on Google Books that make the same claim :-)
Yes many books and a consensus of opinion, only, thats all that it is & I see how people comfort themselves with opinion as mentioned earlier about Tov. There is no data that backs up his claim and he doesn't even try to justify it.
How about this SLM(?)- https://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/2012-November/048541.html
Now I do not claim to have the answers, but to my knowledge no one does. I can only go by the general pattern structure of letters and words (without vowls).
Are all biblical Hebrew words actually Hebrew in origin, probably not, but there is a formalised structure that has certainly built 3 letter roots from 2. It their to see and observation of it has be documented repeatedly.
Did you see this reply to Kolinsky on b-hebrew? https://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/2012-November/048550.html
See also https://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/2012-November/048542.html
From what I've read, scholars are not claiming that all Hebrew words were originally Hebrew or that they're triliteral. Their comments pertain to the general rule.
Hebrew and Aramaic cognates: https://seveleu.com/pages/semitic-syntax-morpho/comparative-sem
Yes, I did read the discussion. IMO, stock answers are oftentimes the right ones.
It's a Hebrew-Arabic cognate list, but it reveals a multitude of common roots between the languages. Too many clear examples to be coincidental. Many of the words are "idem." as the list states. As I said earlier, if you've got a better explanation for s-l-m across Semitic tongues and the words on the cognate list and their similar roots, I'm willing to hear it.
As a reply to your last link, I'm not making the claim that cognates and roots should be conflated or that cognates explain everything linguistically, but they seem to have great explanatory power in this case.
Even if some/many Hebrew words are built from 2 roots, which some dissertations and books have argued, they're still triliteral now. Rashi also conceded this point.
"Stems in Hebrew, as in the other Semitic languages, have this peculiarity, that by far the majority of them consist of three consonants. On these the meaning essentially depends, while the various modifications of the idea are expressed rather by changes in the vowels, e.g. עמק (עָמֵק or עָמֹק; the 3rd pers. sing. perf. does not occur) it was deep, עָמֹ֫ק deep, עֹ֫מֶק depth, עֵ֫מֶק, a valley, plain. Such a stem may be either a verb or a noun, and the language commonly exhihits both together, e.g. זָרַע he has sown, זֶ֫רַע seed; חָכַם he was wise, חָכָם a wise man."
That why I said that it is not the came thing, are they ancient? Also Arabic has other words to cover most of the concepts.
This is one of those things I learned from middle English & Farsi. Native Farsi speakers gave me a plethora of way of saying something. New Farsi and Old.
Many of the three letter roots are clearly artificial, with padding letters. So when you add a letter it does not change the Bi root. It is still there to see.
If you want the answer to that question, I'm pretty sure you can find it. Arabic as a language is over 2,000 years old: one source states that it's 2,500 years old. But if you want to know which cognates are ancient, I believe the info is out there. Either way, whether it's Arabic or another Semitic language, we see similar phenomena.
It's already been acknowledged that at least some triliterals were likely built from 2 roots. But it seems that in most cases, per Gesenius, Hebrew words are triconsonantal.
Food for thought: https://www.ub.edu/ipoa/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/200512AuOr05Rubio.pdf
I read the article in the last link you posted. It reiterates much of what I've said hitherto or acknowledged. :-)
Yes, Hebrew is older than Arabic and Arabic has its own unique features. However, the major issue here has been whether the languages share common linguistic roots. The author seems to answer in the affirmative.
Thanks for the additional links. I deleted the Gesenius link because I already posted the link in this thread. Furthermore, I would recommend Robert Alter's footnote for Exodus 3:14 in his Hebrew Bible.
The comment about Exodus 3:14 was meant for another thread.
But regarding Semitic roots, I don't think this article has been posted yet: https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1227&context=auss
Semantic Values of Derivatives of the Hebrew Root S'R
Interesting, however, the idea that the sentence dictates the meaning is all well and good as long as one can be fairly certain of the other terms in a given sentence. It is not always possible. Whole sentences can have more than one possible meaning and that is in no way unique to BH.
As one of the articles points out - The KJV sometimes interpreted cut as covenant in context. Originally cut just meant cut but took on a more specific connotation, so later the newer term took over when cutting a tree etc.
https://academic.oup.com/jts/article-abstract/72/2/884/6414882?redirectedFrom=fulltext
ReplyDeleteFor the first book, is there a significant number of references to "apocalyptic works from the Second Temple period" ?
ReplyDeleteFor the second book, have you seen the workbook? Would you recommend it?
ReplyDeleteAppreciate the link to the Schmid review: despite any weaknesses the book might have, it's still written well. The reviewer acknowledged as much.
ReplyDeleteFor the Temple Presence book, I'm going to quote what the author says about the book's methodology. Unfortunately, the tome does not have an index:
"For practical purposes, the sources will be delimited to the following: (1) Works likely predating Revelation include Tobit, 1–2 Enoch, Sibylline Oracle 3, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Jubilees, 2 Ezekiel, and the Qumran Sectarian documents. (2) Sources roughly contemporaneous with the time frame in which Revelation was composed include the Similitudes of 1 Enoch, Sibylline Oracles 1–2, 4–5, 4 Ezra (2 Esdras), 1–3 Baruch, the Apocalypse of Abraham, Pseudo-Philo, and the Ezekiel Targum. Although the Mishnah was compiled after the book of Revelation, the volume reflects traditions of the previous four centuries. Additionally, tractate Middoth, in which a temple plan is outlined, was composed soon after the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple, placing the document in the same time frame as Revelation. Therefore, the Mishnah will be included in the analysis."
Robinson, Andrea L. Temple of Presence: The Christological Fulfillment of Ezekiel 40–48 in Revelation 21:1—22:5 (Kindle Locations 339-346). Wipf & Stock, an Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers. Kindle Edition.
I have read Harris' entire grammar, which took me months to do, but I have not been through the workbook yet although I do have it. So, I cannot say for sure whether you should get the workbook or not, but it's very inexpensive on Kindle and Harris normally does a first-rate job with her works.
ReplyDeleteThose are all fascinating!
ReplyDeleteRoman, if you haven't seen the Harris grammar, I think you'd like it. IMO, she's got a way of teaching morphology. Schmid is also a good writer.
ReplyDeleteThe only grammar good I've gone through is David Allan Back, (for Hebrew I use Page H. Kelly's), I find language difficult to pick up. Anyway, it might be time to go back and brush up.
ReplyDeleteOn Schmid's book looks really interesting!
https://www.ames.cam.ac.uk/research/project/grammar-biblical-hebrew
ReplyDeleteA long needed update on its way.
For biblical Hebrew there is no grammar but rather grammars.
ReplyDeletehttps://youtu.be/hFPEzCy2u8o
This is the kind of lecture one does not hear too often, including the significance of culture.
Black's grammar is good: I like the way he teaches. As you likely know, the "standard" NT grammar for many NT Greek students is Bill Mounce's work. Some still use the old Machen text. I have Stan Porter's (et al.) intro work for Greek. It's very informative and helpful, but some have criticized the way he introduces verbs.
ReplyDeleteIMHO, I believe the Zondervan intro Hebrew text is good, but I'm more into Greek and Latin.
For classical Greek, two highly recommended texts in my estimation are Donald Mastronarde and the Athenaze text.
Tovs contribution https://youtu.be/bzdhUkxESVU
ReplyDeleteThank for the Cambridge link. It looks exciting and like something definitely worth having for students of Hebrew.
ReplyDeleteAppreciate the other links too, Duncan.
When I talk about "grammar" in this context, I'm referring to books, which should be distinguished from the language itself, whether Hebrew, Greek, etc. Either way, I get what you're saying about "grammars." But could that not be said of other languages, including English?
When teaching logic, I now tell students that there is not one logic, but many logics.
ReplyDeleteI'm going to ee what Dr Hornkohl says about Hebrew and culture. At the outset, I want to point out that culture is important, no doubt, but so is learning syntax, morphology, word meanings and so forth. There is no getting around learning what a participle is and how it functions, etc. I don't think Hornkohl would disagree.
ReplyDeleteEnglish by region or time varies significantly so morphology is a fluid concept. Also note what he has to say regarding reading Hebrew without vowel pointings. Something I endeavoured to do from the outset of my journey. Also note his mention of the construct state, again not so tied to rules as many would like.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of a participle is fairly universal, but on a case by case basis not so rigid. All of the aspects of the cultural sphere need to be applied, but is that achievable in such ancient research? There is much guess work and appeal to perceived authority. Translations built on translations. We work with what we have but that is not static.
I also spotted Buth in the audience but no lecture at this event.
For morphology do we have 3 letter roots or 2 letter? http://www.rashiyomi.com/wbook_10.htm
ReplyDeleteI opt for 2.
I'm not dogmatic at all about how many roots Hebrew has, but the link you provided stated that Rashi did not deny the 3-letter view although he posited a 2-letter view as well. One Hebrew reference grammar I have states that Hebrew normally forms words from 2 consonants although there are irregular forms.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, I'm wondering about examples like s-l-m in Hebrew, which one also finds in Arabic.
Morphology in English, Greek, Latin, Hebrew is fluid to an extent; not just anything goes. Some formations are clearly wrong but I will admit that English (etc.) has some variation. Furthermore, like other languages, English had diachronic changes.
ReplyDeleteI will listen to what he has to say about the construct state: sounds like he might be more of a descriptivist when it comes to grammar.
Because these languages are so old (Hebrew, Greek, Latin,), there will be gaps and guesswork, to be sure. But is the definition and classification of a participle just up in the air? In Latin, I know that esse is not a participle but cogitans is; ago is not a participle but extensa is.
We've had this conversation before about what we can/cannot know about ancient biblical languages. As you might remember, I think skepticism runs too rampant in biblical studies. Yeah, we have much to learn, but it doesn't stop us from making definite claims about most things.
Anything wrong with being a descriptivist? I don't think so. When translating I would never use a set of 'rules'. There are many controversial passages, but I think that they are translatable, however, I don't agree with Tov on the MT default position.
ReplyDeleteS-l-m in Arabic does not have the same meaning, how does one prove the ancient connection?
When it comes to Tov talking about bad spelling in the DSS Isaiah scroll making it a less reliable version, would the same be said of the Tyndale bible? Later works are more formalised, not sure it makes them more accurate though.
ReplyDeleteLest Coptic be neglected -https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/two-letter-roots-in-early-semitic-language-s.814802/
ReplyDeleteDuncan, I don't think it's wrong to be a descriptivist or a prescriptivist. Personally, I think we need them both. My comment was just A personal opinion with no intent to put him down.
ReplyDeleteTranslation requires some rules just like driving or giving eloquent talks do. Language in general needs rules.
My view of OT translation is a modified MT approach. If s-l-m is not the same as in Arabic, then what about salam and salem?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%A0-L-M
ReplyDeleteI agree with you on the spelling issue.
ReplyDeletehttps://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/bitstream/handle/2152/3066/heckerb18583.pdf
ReplyDeletehttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%A0-L-M
ReplyDeleteIt's earliest known form is already a name, So is it a root meaning? Also Akkadian needs to be scrutinised.
The datings are in error but not nessacarily the sequence - https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0083780
As for salem - the semantic range in Arabic is orders of magnitude larger than the Hebrew as is most of the vocabulary.
ReplyDeleteThe Wikipedia entry technically does not say that s-l-m was already a name, but contained in a name.
ReplyDeleteMy point about salem/shalim and salam is that they're built from the same root. Arabic has its own unique features, but its part of the same language family as Hebrew.
I wouldn't be surprised to find A similar example in Akkadian
Btw, the Wikipedia article briefly discusses Akkadian, another Semitic tongue.
ReplyDeletehttp://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.174.8228&rep=rep1&type=pdf
ReplyDelete"A root is usually stable across all the forms in a lexical item; grammatical distinctions between these forms correspond to different patterns. Thus, lexical items are classified in biliteral, triliteral, quadriliteral, quinqueliteral depending on the number of letters in their root. The general principles of root-and-pattern morphology are ubiquitous in the Arabic-speaking world and are taught in school. This representation is well established in Arabic morphology and seems well founded."
ReplyDeleteTo be clear, I'm not making the claim that Arabic does not have its own unique features, but the language belongs to the Semitic family and Arabic shares terms/words with Hebrew. These facts are pretty much indisputable.
ReplyDeleteI am just pointing out that Arabic has is own biliteral, and the evidence (?) Indicates that the older strata of Hebrew, Egyptian and Arabic have the expansion over time. Arabic as a living language has expanded further. I would not call Coptic a living language, but it still has some use and did expand. So S-L-M may be considered a root of origin, but that may not be the case. I find in modern languages a word that is common is not usually because of a common origin but because it is easier to adopt a word and its meaning, than invent your own. One exception is Welsh, they never seem to adopt new English words without modification.
DeleteHebrew multiliteral roots: https://www.academia.edu/35955607/Multiliteral_roots_ENCYCLOPEDIA_OF_HEBREW_LANGUAGE_AND_LINGUISTICS_Volume_2_G_O
ReplyDelete"1) consonants are rarely doubled in words but the second and third very often doubled.
ReplyDelete2) triliteral words are harder to pronounce with one vowel patterns (qatl, qitl, qutl) but perfectly fit in biliteral words.
3) a true triliteral independent roots expected to show some vowel “gravity” meaning in the third consonant, but in fact as regard to the vowel patterns the third consonant is always marginal.
4) tetraliteral roots are usually a doubled biliteral root or doubled third consonant. There are few roots that integrated a middle consonant (ר and ל usually) but the added consonant always is a non meaning bearing in the vowel pattern."
To reiterate, this is not a hot button issue with me: two or three roots does not really matter to me, but most of what I read about the subject says three roots with some variation. And I learned the point about s-l-m way back when, but if Shalim/shalom/Salem and salam don't all have s-l-m in common as a root, then please explain the common thread between those words. Islam in Arabic is another example. Too many examples, even in Akkadian, to be a coincidence.
ReplyDeleteIt's the difference between reading about it and reading it. I am in the same boat when it comes to Greek 🧐. When reading Hebrew you can see how some roots have been padded with letters for the trilieral system. It's fascinating especially when you look into the evidence for additional characters in the alephbet that have disappeared. When melchisedek was king of Salem, how do we know that term even ment the same, basically we don't.
ReplyDelete"Let us be clear. The etymological (linguistic) root of the word ‘Islam’ is not ‘salam’ (peace). It is the verb ‘salima,’ which means to find security, safety, or even a deeper sense of wellbeing. The word ‘salam’ is derived from that same verb salima, just like the word ‘Islam’ is derived from it. But in the case of ‘Islam,’ it is the so-called Form IV of the verb, aslama, from which it derives more directly. So in a sense, Islam is salam’s sibling, rather than its child. One child, Salam, goes on to express meanings of peace, wellbeing, good neighborliness and hospitality. Whereas the other child, Islam, moves on to generate derivatives of power, such as submission and surrender, with the purpose of finding safety and security. They are certainly close linguistic relatives, they influence each other mutually, but they cannot simply be merged."
ReplyDeleteKeep in mind just how many times you have quoted at me about Hebrew etymology and roots and the claims that two words with trilingual roots that appear to be the same are not in fact the same, but rather one could be a loan word. Now I require solid proofs for those claims, but words in two anciently related languages is a different matter. We get similar claims about the info European aspects of words, we even get claims of edenics.
https://www.studysmarter.co.uk/explanations/english/international-english/language-changes/
ReplyDeleteWhen language becomes formalised, that is the primary lock-in mechanism.
I spend more time with Greek and Latin for practical reasons, but I have been working on my Hebrew some recently, but I also figure that scholars of the language know much more about Hebrew/Semitic languages than I do. So, while I grasp your point about reading versus reading about, most sources I consult state that s-l-m is a common Semitic root and I thought Wikipedia gave plenty of examples although books on the subject do similarly. And I understand that none of these things are universally held and there are exceptions to the rules. But the salem example seems as plain to me one one can get.
ReplyDeleteMy claim about the word Islam was actually that the root is the same as Shalom, Salem, etc. I will cite evience for what I said about Islam.
Did Islam derive from the root s-l-m?
ReplyDeleteSee https://www.whyislam.org/what-is-islam/
https://islamfyi.princeton.edu/what-does-islam-actually-mean/
https://www.etymonline.com/word/islam
This is the same thing I've read in books that discuss Isalam, salam, and shalom.
See https://books.google.com/books?id=EDeuEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA3&dq=does+the+word+Islam+derive+from+the+semitic+root+slm?&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwie4NzJ5-H-AhWfk2oFHf-LBeMQ6AF6BAgEEAI#v=onepage&q=does%20the%20word%20Islam%20derive%20from%20the%20semitic%20root%20slm%3F&f=false
ReplyDeleteand a multiplicity of books on Google Books that make the same claim :-)
For Melchizedek and Salem, see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344199194_4_A_Literary_and_Discourse_Analysis_of_Genesis_14
ReplyDeleteYes many books and a consensus of opinion, only, thats all that it is & I see how people comfort themselves with opinion as mentioned earlier about Tov. There is no data that backs up his claim and he doesn't even try to justify it.
ReplyDeleteHow about this SLM(?)-
https://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/2012-November/048541.html
Now I do not claim to have the answers, but to my knowledge no one does. I can only go by the general pattern structure of letters and words (without vowls).
Are all biblical Hebrew words actually Hebrew in origin, probably not, but there is a formalised structure that has certainly built 3 letter roots from 2. It their to see and observation of it has be documented repeatedly.
https://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/2012-November/048548.html
ReplyDeleteDid you see this reply to Kolinsky on b-hebrew? https://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/2012-November/048550.html
ReplyDeleteSee also https://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/2012-November/048542.html
From what I've read, scholars are not claiming that all Hebrew words were originally Hebrew or that they're triliteral. Their comments pertain to the general rule.
Hebrew and Aramaic cognates: https://seveleu.com/pages/semitic-syntax-morpho/comparative-sem
I read it all as I hope you did. Challenges & stock answers and more challenges.
ReplyDeleteHebrew roots are now fixed and have been fixed and formalised for a long time. "Always"?
Isn't that a Hebrew and Arabic cognate list, not quite the same thing?
A little history on the "general" rule -http://bhebrew.biblicalhumanities.org/viewtopic.php?t=22485
ReplyDeletehttps://www.quora.com/Are-there-Hebrew-Aramaic-cognates-of-Arabic-peoples-names-such-as-Mohammad-Abdul-Ali-etc
ReplyDeletehttps://balshanut.wordpress.com/2008/08/12/millard-alan-r-cognates-can-be-deceptive-some-aramaic-distinctives-pages-145-149-in-studia-aramaica-new-york-oxford-university-press-1995/
ReplyDeleteYes, I did read the discussion. IMO, stock answers are oftentimes the right ones.
ReplyDeleteIt's a Hebrew-Arabic cognate list, but it reveals a multitude of common roots between the languages. Too many clear examples to be coincidental. Many of the words are "idem." as the list states. As I said earlier, if you've got a better explanation for s-l-m across Semitic tongues and the words on the cognate list and their similar roots, I'm willing to hear it.
As a reply to your last link, I'm not making the claim that cognates and roots should be conflated or that cognates explain everything linguistically, but they seem to have great explanatory power in this case.
Even if some/many Hebrew words are built from 2 roots, which some dissertations and books have argued, they're still triliteral now. Rashi also conceded this point.
ReplyDeletehttps://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gesenius%27_Hebrew_Grammar/30._Stems_and_Roots;_Biliteral,_Triliteral,_and_Quadriliteral
"Stems in Hebrew, as in the other Semitic languages, have this peculiarity, that by far the majority of them consist of three consonants. On these the meaning essentially depends, while the various modifications of the idea are expressed rather by changes in the vowels, e.g. עמק (עָמֵק or עָמֹק; the 3rd pers. sing. perf. does not occur) it was deep, עָמֹ֫ק deep, עֹ֫מֶק depth, עֵ֫מֶק, a valley, plain. Such a stem may be either a verb or a noun, and the language commonly exhihits both together, e.g. זָרַע he has sown, זֶ֫רַע seed; חָכַם he was wise, חָכָם a wise man."
Arabic/Hebrew cognates from when exactly?
ReplyDeleteThat why I said that it is not the came thing, are they ancient? Also Arabic has other words to cover most of the concepts.
This is one of those things I learned from middle English & Farsi. Native Farsi speakers gave me a plethora of way of saying something. New Farsi and Old.
https://www.khaleejtimes.com/uae/uae-researchers-develop-unique-arabic-thesaurus
Many of the three letter roots are clearly artificial, with padding letters. So when you add a letter it does not change the Bi root. It is still there to see.
If you want the answer to that question, I'm pretty sure you can find it. Arabic as a language is over 2,000 years old: one source states that it's 2,500 years old. But if you want to know which cognates are ancient, I believe the info is out there. Either way, whether it's Arabic or another Semitic language, we see similar phenomena.
ReplyDeleteIt's already been acknowledged that at least some triliterals were likely built from 2 roots. But it seems that in most cases, per Gesenius, Hebrew words are triconsonantal.
Food for thought: https://www.ub.edu/ipoa/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/200512AuOr05Rubio.pdf
Arabic seems to have the same triliteral feature and similar roots with Hebrew.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.getquranic.com/which-is-older-arabic-or-hebrew/
ReplyDeleteI read the article in the last link you posted. It reiterates much of what I've said hitherto or acknowledged. :-)
ReplyDeleteYes, Hebrew is older than Arabic and Arabic has its own unique features. However, the major issue here has been whether the languages share common linguistic roots. The author seems to answer in the affirmative.
https://www.ub.edu/ipoa/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/200512AuOr08Militarev.pdf
ReplyDeletehttps://jcolang.uobaghdad.edu.iq/index.php/JCL/article/view/226
ReplyDeletehttps://ojs.uclouvain.be/index.php/babelao/article/download/65003/61333/120573
ReplyDeleteThanks for the additional links. I deleted the Gesenius link because I already posted the link in this thread. Furthermore, I would recommend Robert Alter's footnote for Exodus 3:14 in his Hebrew Bible.
ReplyDeleteHave you seen this - https://brill.com/view/journals/vt/71/4-5/article-p784_19.xml?language=en
ReplyDeleteIt came up in one of my Google searches but I have not read it. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteWhy Ex 3:14?
ReplyDeleteThe comment about Exodus 3:14 was meant for another thread.
ReplyDeleteBut regarding Semitic roots, I don't think this article has been posted yet: https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1227&context=auss
Semantic Values of Derivatives of the Hebrew Root S'R
Interesting, however, the idea that the sentence dictates the meaning is all well and good as long as one can be fairly certain of the other terms in a given sentence. It is not always possible. Whole sentences can have more than one possible meaning and that is in no way unique to BH.
ReplyDeleteAnother Semitic roots article. I have not read it yet, but will tomorrow. Don't think this has been posted yet.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.ub.edu/ipoa/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/19992000AuOr9Lipinski.pdf
https://jewishlink.news/features/25729-insights-into-the-root-g-z-r
ReplyDeletehttps://rsc.byu.edu/gospel-jesus-christ-old-testament/cutting-covenants
ReplyDeletehttps://youtu.be/2tVGVSX1BSU
ReplyDeleteSo we have the old Hebrew term for cut and a later term for cut that may not have been Hebrew.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346994580_The_Hebrew_Biblical_Berit_in_Light_of_Ancient_Near_Eastern_Covenants_and_Treaties
ReplyDeleteAs one of the articles points out - The KJV sometimes interpreted cut as covenant in context. Originally cut just meant cut but took on a more specific connotation, so later the newer term took over when cutting a tree etc.
ReplyDelete