B-Hebrew: The Biblical Hebrew Forum

In Ex. 10:2 we read:
את אשר התעללתי במצרים
"what things I have wrought in Egypt."

The word התעללתי HI-T-ALAL-TI is of the Hebrew root LL=L+L, namely, the doublet of the uni-literal root L, 'up, on'.
From this double root we have also:
לול LUL, 'staircase, winding stairs' going up and up, as in 1Ki.6:8. Also:
ליל LAYIL, 'night', the darkness resting everywhere upon the earth. Also:
לולאה LULAAH, 'a loop' curving up, as in Ex. 26.5. Also:
אליל ELIYL, 'idol, statue', possibly אל-היא-לא EL-HI-LO. Also:
עליל ALIYL, 'smelting tower', as in Ps. 12:7(6). Also:
עלילה ALIYLAH, 'a thing upon a thing', as in Dt. 22:14, and Ps. 77:13. Also:
עוללה OLELAH, 'topmost fruit', as in Is. 17:6. Also:
עולל OLEL, 'a growing infant', as in Is. 13:16, and Job 3:16.

Hence, התעללתי HI-T-ALAL-TI appears to me to mean here 'I came upon them to harass them over and over'.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

shalom YitsHaq,

Based on this reasoning, why wouldn't it mean 'I wound around them darkly as a fruity, growing baby'?

This is an etymological fallacy.

I would accept your flourishing: 'I wound around them darkly as a fruity, growing baby', except that it is not 'around them' but 'upon them', על AL. You are also missing the doubling על-על AL-AL, of התעללתי HI-T-ALAL-TI for the repeating action.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

OK, 'I repeatedly wound upon them darkly as a fruity, growing baby'.

The point is that this suggestion is preposterous and unpredictable. And it serves to demonstrate how the meaning of a word is not determined by its etymology. What a word means depends on how a language community decides to use it.

There is nothing wrong with the imaginative: 'I repeatedly wound upon them darkly as a fruity, growing baby', except that the word התעללתי HI-T-ALAL-TI contains a contextually implied meaning that is beyond the reach of the etymology, namely, that the purpose of the "wounding upon" was to harass them.

התעללות HI-T-ALEL-U-T is 'abuse, maltreatment, mutilation.'

Isaac Fried, Boston University

As I see it Hebrew etymology consists merely of the breakup of a Hebrew word into its elementary components and constituents. It does not, and certainly, can not, reveal the evolved and differentiated meaning of the analyzed word.
For example, from the uni-literal Hebrew root L, 'up, on, over', we have the words מעיל M-I-L, 'overcoat', as in 1Sam. 18:4, as well as מעלה MA-AL-EH, 'rise, steep', as in 1Sam. 9:11, as well as MA-AL-AH, 'step, degree', as in 2Ki. 20:9. They all have to do with rising, lifting, or being over, but each in a different situation, meriting a different meaning.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

Ben:

Ben Putnam wrote:shalom YitsHaq,

Based on this reasoning, why wouldn't it mean 'I wound around them darkly as a fruity, growing baby'?

This is an etymological fallacy.

This isn’t even the standard etymological error. The standard etymological error recognizes that most Hebrew letters may not be dropped from a root with the exception of some, not all, “doubled ayins” and a few irregular forms. Isaac Fried’s theory violates this standard etymological error.

While I agree with you that “…the meaning of a word is not determined by its etymology. What a word means depends on how a language community decides to use it.” at the same time the etymology often guides the language community on how to use it, which can be recognized. At the same time, there are many false etymologies, as the form of a word doesn’t always determine of its etymology.

As far as I can tell, Isaac Fried is on this list not to learn nor to debate, rather to proselytize for his theory, a theory I find completely in error. As a result, I almost never read his posts (though sometimes the responses such as yours). I have also concluded that answering his posts is a waste of time, so I don’t bother.

Karl W. Randolph.