Dear Sebastian,
We may repeat some fundamentals of lexical semantics. The letters or sounds of a word have no meaning in themselves. But they signal a concept in the mind of native speakers. This concept usually has a clear core (therefore, we can speak of a basic meaning), but becomes more fuzzy towards the edges. How are such concepts used in communication? Ogden's triangle illustrates the situation. At one corner it has "sign" (letters or sounds of a word), at the other two corners it has "concept" and "reference." It is very important to distinguish between "concept" and "reference," and I illustrate it this way: The sign is QEREN, and the core meaning is "horn." The references are the things in the world denoted by the word, namely, horn of animals; perfume box; receptable; light rays (because they can seem like horns); strength and dignity. The concepts are often broader and the possible references often are more numerous in Hebrew compared with English. Consider for example all the references of YD and KLY.
If we apply the points above to Jonah 2:5, I see no problem in the view that SWP in this verse signals the same concept as SWP in Exodus 2:3, 5 and Isaiah 19:6. The object of reference in Jonah 2:5 needs not be exactly the same plants as in the other passages. NIV and several other translations uses "seeweed" which may signal the same concept. The references of a concept usually have something in common, but they need not be of the same kind. So "swamp" is not so dissimilar with "reed" that it could not be a reference of the same concept. But—and this is very important—to establish a new reference, there must be clear evidence.
Even though the word study of dead languages does not have anything to do with the natural sciences, the hypothetic deductive method is at work also in the humanities. We form a hypothesis, we find what it predicts, and we look to see if the predictions come true. If the predictions fit our data, have we proved that our hypothesis is correct? Absolutely not, because there are many other hypotheses and viewpoints that can account for the data. On the other hand, if the predictions do not come true, our hypothesis is falsified. We should keep this in mind when we look for alternative references of a concept, and we must always ask ourselves if the conclusion we draw is well founded. So far I do not see clear evidence in favor of "swamp."
Rolf:
The two basic meanings of SWP found in lexicons are "reed" and "red," and I do not see that any of the passages above would contradict that. We should also remember that SWP in the name YM SWP (Exodus 15:4, 5) hardly can refer to a swamp.
But Jon 2:6 is problematic, isn't it? Because of this reason,
סוּף is discussed in nearly every commentary on Jonah. Also, because of this verse most dictionaries nowadays list
סוּף as (1)
reeds (Ex 2:3.5; Is 19:6); (2)
seaweed (Jon 2:6).
+ Theoretically, SWP in YM SWP could refer to "swamp". There is an old explanation of the name "Red Sea" (
Mare rubrum, erythra thalassa) by some Greek Historians: The Red Sea is ruddled because of the red Red Sea mud, and because of this it is called the "
Red Sea".
Of course, this is somewhat forced. I'm not even sure whether I like the explanation
sp>
סוּף="swamp" myself. But the fact remains that today this explanation has at least the four aforenamed advocates and that "mud covered my head (at the bottom of the sea)" seems to make more sense than "reeds entwined my head (at the bottom of the sea)" (cf. Ps 69:15: "
Rescue me from the mire, do not let me sink; deliver me from those who hate me, from the deep waters!").
But even if Jon 2:6 stops to be problematic as soon as one assumes
סוּף="swamp", now instead Is 19:6 is the problematic verse, so nothing is won by that. And that's the reason I wonder whether one could strengthen this position by reinterpreting
קמל.
Best regards,
Sebastian Walter[/quote]
