B-Hebrew: The Biblical Hebrew Forum

I was just reading the New JPS translation of Isaiah 9:5 וַיִּקְרָ֨א שְׁמֹ֜ו פֶּ֠לֶא יֹועֵץ֙
"He has been named 'The Mighty God is planning grace." Any idea why they chose to translate פֶּ֠לֶא as grace?
Sincerely,
Michael Abernathy

Michael W Abernathy wrote:I was just reading the New JPS translation of Isaiah 9:5 וַיִּקְרָ֨א שְׁמֹ֜ו פֶּ֠לֶא יֹועֵץ֙
"He has been named 'The Mighty God is planning grace." Any idea why they chose to translate פֶּ֠לֶא as grace?
Sincerely,
Michael Abernathy

Good question.

Looking at the definition of the verb, we get “‎פלא to be beyond reach ⇒ to set aside: when an animal was designated to be a sacrifice, it was deemed “beyond reach” in that it was not to be exchanged for another animal ⇒ to be miraculous: something that is beyond reach of a human to accomplish” and the noun listed as “‎פלא beyond reach, a miracle”. Seeing as it is used in connection with sacrifices as listed above, could that be the reason?

Karl W. Randolph.

Seems to me that פלא is a variant of פלה (see Ex. 33:16 and Ps. 4:3-4), 'pick up, pick out, set aside, set apart, distinguish, separate, segregate, isolate', and by implication 'extraordinary, unusual, wonderful'.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

Michael W Abernathy wrote:I was just reading the New JPS translation of Isaiah 9:5 וַיִּקְרָ֨א שְׁמֹ֜ו פֶּ֠לֶא יֹועֵץ֙
"He has been named 'The Mighty God is planning grace." Any idea why they chose to translate פֶּ֠לֶא as grace?

The JPS notes connect 9:5 to 25:1, where a similar combination of vocabulary occurs. But I'm still not sure why "grace" is used rather something amazing.

Michael W Abernathy wrote:I was just reading the New JPS translation of Isaiah 9:5 וַיִּקְרָ֨א שְׁמֹ֜ו פֶּ֠לֶא יֹועֵץ֙ "He has been named 'The Mighty God is planning grace." Any idea why they chose to translate פֶּ֠לֶא as grace?

Cf. the original JPS:

Isaiah 9:5 JPS (1917)...and his name is called Pele-joez...

Maybe they felt they needed to make up for an under-translation with a bit of over-translation.

Ken M. Penner wrote: But I'm still not sure why "grace" is used rather something amazing.

The new JPS does tend towards over-translation.

Isaac Fried wrote:Seems to me that פלא is a variant of פלה (see Ex. 33:16 and Ps. 4:3-4), 'pick up, pick out, set aside, set apart, distinguish, separate, segregate, isolate', and by implication 'extraordinary, unusual, wonderful'.

This brings up a question, Isaac, that I've been meaning to ask you for a while.

What are we to make of the fact that basic words like פלג and בדל and, as you point out, פלה, the most common words for the concept of separation and variance, do NOT contain the tell-tale ר? I think that your isolation of this connection is one of the strongest points of ASEHL. To accept this connection as valid, I do not require it to hold true 100% of the time. It holds true, methinks, in the majority of words, although I don't know if this majority is 55% or 90%. (If the former, it could (could!) be a coincidence.) But I would expect to find the ר is EVERY really basic, common word for the concept of separation. I am thus also a little perplexed not to find the ר in מן, "out of, away from, separated off from."

You have probably addressed this question elsewhere, but I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

שלום

1. The Hebrew act is characterized by its outcome, namely, the act is not a depicted process, but an ensuing evident material state.
2. The peculiarities of the act, and its intentions, are inferred by implication. For instance, the act שבר SABAR means being in a fragmented state. How it happened is a circumstantial issue that is beyond language. The kindred act צבר CABAR, as in Gen. 41:49, is rendered more abstractly as 'collect, accumulate.'
3. the kindred acts פלא, פלה, בלה, בלע related to בלל BLL and פלל PLL, mean 'pile'. In spoken Hebrew אפליה APLAYAH is translated as 'segregation.' This word does not refer to an aggregated population as whole, but rather to the fact that the population contains distinct groups (notice the R) or "piles".
The Hebrew word גל GAL, 'mound', has no R in it, but הר HAR, 'mountain', does contain an R, meaning that GAL is considered in its entirety as a single entity, while HAR is considered a composition. An example to the fact that language is capable of expressing the negative only via the positive is given us by HOR, 'mountain', versus XOR, as in 2Ki. 12:10, 'hole, cavity'.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

Mark Lightman wrote:…What are we to make of the fact that basic words like פלג and בדל and, as you point out, פלה, the most common words for the concept of separation and variance, do NOT contain the tell-tale ר?

From where do you get the idea that words of separation and variance should have a ר? That’s not in Biblical Hebrew.

Karl W. Randolph.

Isaac Fried wrote:The Hebrew word גל GAL, 'mound', has no R in it, but הר HAR, 'mountain', does contain an R, meaning that GAL is considered in its entirety as a single entity, while HAR is considered a composition. An example to the fact that language is capable of expressing the negative only via the positive is given us by HOR, 'mountain', versus XOR, as in 2Ki. 12:10, 'hole, cavity'.

Absolutely, Isaac. On thinks above all of the pair אחד and אחר (note the "r") about which your theories have much to say.

kwrandolph wrote:From where do you get the idea that words of separation and variance should have a ר? That’s not in Biblical Hebrew.

Fried, ASEHL, p. 3. My sense at this point is that the principle holds true in Biblical Hebrew (and English) except when it does not. But then, you can say that about most linguistic principles. The difference (note the "r") is that Isaac writes better than any linguist I know of, so one has increased tolerance to test his theories. The wit and audacity of his prose remind me of no one as much as Nietzsche, who himself was a pretty good philologist.

Trying to dispel any misconception about "separation" and "variance" I will restate my case: The Hebrew act is a material state (discount emotions, feelings and sensations.) The inclusion of the letter R in the root invariably (if and only if) implies that the material state consists of more than one part. What does the act רצח RACAX (like הרג HARAG) mean? It means that a body initially whole and sound is now rent asunder, hacked into bloody pieces. I look it up in my Arabic dictionary and I see that their رضح is 'crushed dates'!
An act may be carried farther by implication and analogy. The root RDD רדד is a member of the family
רדד, רטט, רסס, רצץ, רשש, רתת
all meaning 'crush.'
So, from where do we have the present-day מים רדודים MAYIM RDUDIYM?, 'shallow water'? We have it by implication, as in Songs 5:7. To wit, what is crushed, what is רצוץ RACUC, is spreadable and can be made thin.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

Indeed. אחד of which we have אֶחָד EXAD, 'one', is a variant of אגד AGAD, 'held together', of which the AGUDAH, 'bunch, bundle', of Ex. 12:22; and אחז AXAZ, 'held, gripped, grasped', as in Gen. 25:26. In spoken Hebrew אחדות AXDUT is 'unity', and איחוד IYXUD is 'union'.

AXR of which we have אַחֵר AXER, 'another, different', אחר AXAR, 'after, later', and אחרון AXARON, 'last', is a variant of אגר AGAR, 'store, accumulate, amass', as in Prov. 6:8.

Isaac Fried, Boston University