Forget "piercing".ducky wrote: ּSo why should we flip-flop in the air and doing all that we can to read it as "piercing", when all of the other evidence never see this root comes as "pierce".
I mean - put it on a scale. You put almost everything that we know on one side, and then, on the other side we can only put the "It Could Be because English has it too".
If you ask why ["one would do all one can"] to read (some manuscripts) as karu/kaaru.
An answer is because that's what those manuscripts say! One doesn't have to do much. Just saying what the word says!
What you described about the difference in hebrew is the same as in English. I think it's the same issue hence I would prefer to translate karu/kaaru as bore or dugducky wrote:an English speaker doesn't see a problem when he read this verse with the meaning of "pierce". Because in his tongue, he is used to it.
No it isn't.ducky wrote: English's Dig = English's Pierce
Pierce does tend to be clean, in one go, not removing stuff.
Dug tends to mean removing stuff and often not in one go.
To Bore is kind of between the two.. Something going straight through, but might not be in one go, and often something coming out.
And if all other cases of Kara / Kaara are dig i'd prefer to keep it as dig.
The majority of the time in English, digging would not be used to describe something going through flesh. It tends to be through mud. And therefore isn't used to describe a brutal act.ducky wrote: But anyway, the other usage of "digging" is used also according to the movement of the sharp object being used as a shovel. And not about any piercing in the attempt of making a hole. And surely not about any brutal-act.
But that's not to say it can't be used that way.
It might be 1/1000 times that it is used that way, but the usage is clear and logical if/when it is.
well i'd favour digging/boring..ducky wrote: 6. So even if I accept the form of כארו/כרו, there is no way that it can be understood as "piercing" - There is just no way.
but how would you understand it then, if you were to " accept the form of כארו/כרו"?
I am not saying that digging is brutal and piercing isn't brutal. If describing piercing through a head then piercing would be brutal, usually ending in death.ducky wrote: pierce a hole in the door and it is called נקב.
or cheek and so on.
Also, these examples are brutal and the pieces of the body are also brutally taken out from the other side, or from the arrow when it is taken out.
and when you create a hole in a wooden door - you also knock it a few times. and still, it is called נקב.
You said in the case of נקב (which we might agree could be translated as pierce), in some examples, "pieces of the body are also brutally taken out from the other side"
But you also said
Yet you agree that piercing can involve taking Y out of X.ducky wrote: Digging in Hebrew (כרה and חפר) is to create a wide and deep hole (relatively).
The act is to take Y out from X, and therefore, the specific place of the X becomes a hole. Like you take out dirt from the ground, and therefore, the specific place of the ground becomes a hole.
When you "dig" a nail inside the wall - you just stick it - and even though you made a hole in the wall. You didn't "dig" a hole. but you just pierced it.
And if you make a hole in the bucket - you don't "dig" the hole but you pierce it.
And this is the usage of the word anywhere. Not only in Hebrew, but also in the other Semitic languages.
So the process has a common factor, driving something into something, making a hole..
Then is the emphasis on taking stuff out of it making a substantial hole.
Or, on it finely going through.
There may be cases where in English one could say pierce or dig.
And there may be cases where it'd be really bizarre to say dig.
For example it would typically be bizarre to say for somebody doing an ear piercing to say they're going to dig through or into somebody's ear. As the emphasis is not on if a bit of ear lobe comes out. The emphasis is on that it goes through with minimum fuss.
In the case of a spear through he head, it'd usually be pierce.. but it's a large enough object, and may take stuff out, and it's not a fine procedure, somebody may say dug. I think either could work.. Pierce could work 'cos the emphasis could be that it is swift and maybe even fairly clean.
But if a person is alive and feeling it, feeling something going through his hand and writhing in pain, the emphasis may well be that there's a substantial hole in his hand and stuff coming out and maybe their instruments were a bit blunt and maybe the word "dug" sounds more apt.
In English the words pierce and dig are not the same and they have different connotations and in almost all cases one is used over the other. You dig earth, you dig rock.. you pierce ears.. A spear may pierce.. Rather like the examples you gave for hebrew. But the essential process of making a hole through something is still there, and the words have different connotations, and a person could sometimes use one word in place of the other, to emphasis differently.
Well in English that'd be a meaning of dug in English like prod. Not really what we are referring toducky wrote: Or if I go to the doctor and he can't find my vein, and he plays around with the needle from side to side, then I would say that he "dug" *IN* my arm" (not "dug my arm", by the way).
(but I think that this usage is only in Modern Hebrew and I think it is influenced by English, I'm not sure about it).
In both cases of "as a lion", or "dug", you have to add some words.. like "at" or "into"
"as a lion, [at] my hands and feet"
"they dug, [at/into ] my hands and feet]"
If somebody were to say They XXXXX the ground and said is XXXXX pierce or dug, i'd bet on dug. I have almost never in my life as a native English speaker, heard anybody say they pierced the ground. (Though with my knowledge of how English is used, how any word can be used in an unusual sense, i wouldn't say that just because I haven't heard it, it can't be said).. And if I was told that XXXXX is "pierced". Then I wouldn't say oh it must be a mistake, it must be "dug".
ducky wrote: I mean - put it on a scale. You put almost everything that we know on one side, and then, on the other side we can only put the "It Could Be because English has it too".
On the other side is "it could the case in those manuscripts because the Hebrew in those manuscripts says it".
And I understand it in light of that fact.
And it's not a stretch.
Even in English, to say pierce the ground would be a 1/500 usage, or dig into somebody's hand, is a 1/1000 usage. In English and perhaps Hebrew too. But one wouldn't rule it out in Englisih just because we don't find it used that way in a large novel. There is a striiking similarity between the words in the sense of making a hole. If we were to make a prediction of what word was there, without ever seeing the word, we'd probably not estimate that it'd be that word(unless perhaps it's clearly a person alive writhing in pain, and the author is choosing a word to denote a relatively large hole given the object). But generally, ordinarily, one might not predict that.. One might predict oh it's through a hand, so the author would say pierce/NKV not Karu. But when that word karu/kaaru is actually written there, the odds change! And we're not talking about a word that is completely out of place, like "they listened my hands and feet". We're talking about two words that are in one sense very similar and in one sense very different, one being dug(karu) one being pierce(nkv), that just have slightly different connotations, in English or Hebrew. But both involve making a hole..I'd still translate as dug, maybe dug, or 'bored' (because I like to translate the word consistently), and one could add the word 'at' or in or 'into' in brackets. Just like you might add "at" after kaari(as a lion).
Ralph Zak