An ancient obsolete plural form in 1Kings 6:4?

For discussions which focus upon specific words, their origin, meaning, relationship to other ANE languages.
Forum rules
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
Mark Lightman
Posts: 88
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2014 12:33 pm

Re: An ancient obsolete plural form in 1Kings 6:4?

Post by Mark Lightman »

Isaac Fried wrote:Always to keep in mind that רֵעַ REA, 'friend', as in 2Sam. 13:3, has nothing to do רֹעַ ROA, 'evil, wicked, malice, obnoxious', as in 1Sam 17:28.
Genenius, who is my second favorite Hebrew etymologist of all time, contends that we have to do here with two separate (separate!) roots. The first he connects with ראה (the companion is one who is LOOKED ON favorably) and the second he rather fancifully connects with ῥοῖζος and English "rush" (evil springs from a rattling and rushing sound.) I prefer the simplicity and the relative non-arbitrariness of your system. Both words contain the fundamental concept of separability/variance. The former is the companion seen as OTHER, the latter is evil rejected as OTHER.
Mark Lightman wrote:...the latter is evil rejected as OTHER.
Not to forget מר,that which is rejected as other/bitter (compare πικρός, and note the r's.)
Mark Lightman
Isaac Fried
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: An ancient obsolete plural form in 1Kings 6:4?

Post by Isaac Fried »

With all due respect to Gesenius, I categorically reject the idea of a "horizontal" relationship between ראה, רֵעַ and רַע. They directly and independently issue from the one-consonant root R, 'separate'.
The act ראה (as opposed to חזה) is 'discern', or as AHD puts it: 'To perceive or recognize as being different or distinct', namely, 'to separate the view, to differentiate and discriminate between the different objects in front of the eye.'
רֵעַ, as is רעיה, is but a distinct, independent and separate being.
The act רעה, said of cattle in the field, implies that they are free to move independently. The idea, often heard, that a רועה, 'shepherd', is a רואה, 'overseer', is in my opinion inherently mistaken.
רע RA, is 'bad, flimsy, fragile, decrepit'.
ריר, as in 1Sam. 21:14(13), is the rarefied material keeping the mouth wet.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
Isaac Fried
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: An ancient obsolete plural form in 1Kings 6:4?

Post by Isaac Fried »

We recently had a painter צַבָּעִי in the house, an occurrence which made me recall that the Hebrew לִצְבּוֹעַ, 'to paint', has nothing to do with אֶצְבָּע, 'finger'. Namely, to paint לִצְבּוֹעַ is not to apply paint with the אֶצְבָּע finger.
Both act and noun come from the root צב, נצב, 'enlarge, extend'. Related to צב is צף 'float', and the act צִפָּה, 'coat, cover, overlay' as in Ex. 36:34
אֶת הַקְּרָשִׁים צִפָּה זָהָב וְאֶת טַבְּעֹתָם עָשָׂה זָהָב בָּתִּים לַבְּרִיחִם וַיְצַף אֶת הַבְּרִיחִם זָהָב
NIV: "They overlaid the frames with gold and made gold rings to hold the crossbars. They also overlaid the crossbars with gold."

Isaac Fried, Boston University
Mark Lightman
Posts: 88
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2014 12:33 pm

Re: An ancient obsolete plural form in 1Kings 6:4?

Post by Mark Lightman »

Isaac Fried wrote: רע RA, is 'bad, flimsy, fragile, decrepit'.
But a variant of which is צַר, as in Esther 7:6: אִ֚ישׁ צַ֣ר וְאֹויֵ֔ב הָמָ֥ן הָרָ֖ע הַזֶּ֑ה

That the LXX equivalents (πονηρός, ἐχθρός) also have r's is in this case just a coincidence.
Mark Lightman
Post Reply