Question on the name Samuel from 1 Sam 1:20

[Jason Hare]

11Q5 Psalms (The Great Psalms Scroll) does indeed read רשעים:

https://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/explo ... e/B-371128

Right-column, fourth line from the top:

[צררוני מנעורי גם לו]א יכולו לי על גבי חרשו רשעים

Possibly a case of dittography in the Masoretic or Masoretic ancestor?

חרשו חרשים < חרשו רשעים

תּוֹדָה רַבָּה
Does that site have all of the biblical texts from within the DSS? How useful!

I've got BHQ for the current volumes (on Logos). Looking forward to having Psalms. It's a joy to be able to access!

[S_Walch]

Does that site have all of the biblical texts from within the DSS? How useful!

The Leon Levy DSS Database? Yes, it should have most (if not nearly all) of them. Thought people knew about the site?! I've been using it since around 2011 (you'll see many comments on the fragments from myself).

They have most of the original photographs taken back in the 1950's, but have been adding new, up-to-date colour photographs the past decade.

[ducky]

Hi Karl,

Thanks for your nice explanation about how you study the words.
But my way is a little bit different.
I don't have to check a word in its exact same letters. Because sometimes (or a lot of time) the same word is written in different ways, with different letters, and it is the "same word", only with a change of accent.
(and never mind the examples for this)

***********

Anyway, about the word גב...
Personally, I can understand this word as "back" in three ways.
And one of them would fit your way - which you see the basic meaning of the ג+ב as "hollow".
And actually, it is more like a "curve".
Like a valley between two hills, or a pit in the ground, that you may look at them as hollow places, and I will call them "curves" in the ground (or a curved ground).
Or, using the examples you wrote in your last post... The shield boss is the curved place in the shield, and so is your other example, the wheel, which is curved.

Another way to say it... is that the word גב in this meaning of "curve" is another accent of כף (which is curving, bending, and so on).

ג/כ = palate.
ב/פ = labial.

And with that, just like the palm, which is not always curved, is called כף (as the curving part of the hand), so is the back, that is not always curved, is called גב - because this body part is the bending part of the body.

So when you see these letters ג+ב with the basic meaning of "hollow/curve", you shouldn't reject the meaning of גב as back, since it fits your view perfectly.
You should actually embrace it.
And I don't know why you reject it - it fits your way.

****
About the other matters in your post, maybe later, (I don't want this to spread).
But I wonder if you'll agree with me on this for now, as seeing the גב as the curving part of the body (just like a wheel, or a shield boss).

[kwrandolph]

So when you see these letters ג+ב with the basic meaning of "hollow/curve", you shouldn't reject the meaning of גב as back, since it fits your view perfectly.

Nope, that’s not how lexicography is done.

To give an example from English. English has five words that are pronounced tū:
• the number two
• a word that indicates excess—too
• a word that is a synonym for also—too
• a word that indicates direction—to
• a word that signifies an infinitive—to

According to your theory, they should all have the same background. Looking at the meanings, they don’t.

In German, a cognate language, what words do they have for the same meanings? They are in order: zwei, zu, auch, zu, zu.

What about Norwegian, a cognate language closer to English than German? They are: to (pronounced tū), får, også, til, å. Even though Norwegian as a whole is closer to English than is German, it has five very different words with very different pronunciations where English has one word with three spellings.

I bring this up to show that just because words have similar sounds and similar spellings, it does not mean that they have similar meanings. The same is true in Hebrew. Just because two words have similar sounds and similar spellings has no relationship to their meanings. Your theory doesn’t work in practice.

Bottom line, there’s no relationship between כף ,גו and גב.

Karl W. Randolph.

[ducky]

Hi Karl,

To give an example from English. English has five words that are pronounced tū:
• the number two
• a word that indicates excess—too
• a word that is a synonym for also—too
• a word that indicates direction—to
• a word that signifies an infinitive—to

According to your theory, they should all have the same background. Looking at the meanings, they don’t.

Hi Karl,

Actually, The English words "to" and "too" do have the same background ("too" is a variant of "to").
I saw this at:
https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=too

The "two" is different, as it has the "w" in it as another consonant, so you shouldn't put it in that group at all.

But anyway, I didn't write what my theory is. I just wrote some notes. And I didn't say if I see every similar combination of letters to have the same basic meaning or not.
So you shouldn't reject my general theory if I only wrote a few notes about it for a specific issue.

And I don't want this conversation to go to a general discussion about how to study roots.
Let's talk about the specific case.

****

I wrote what I wrote, according to what you say. I didn't even come to argue.

You explained earlier, in one of your posts, that every גב (or almost "every") that you see has the basic meaning (background) of "hollow", right?
I am not making this up.

and therefore, you also explained גב in this psalm, as "hollow" ("would include rooms where people lived and worked").

So what you do is giving the word גב a "hollow" background-meaning as an axiom, and then you force this axiom on that verse.

And notice that I didn't come against your basic way.
But I only suggest that your axiom is not accurate.
because you should see it as "curve, bend, turn". And it doesn't affect your understanding of any one of the words.

(I mean, you came to the point of explaining the boss shield as hollow from the inside instead of just saying that is curved).

All I am saying is that instead of understanding this as "hollow", you should understand this as "curve, bend, turn, and so on".

And just as you see that boss shield as curving, you should see the back=גב as curving.
Which fits the context better, and still doesn't change your view of how you study a word meaning.

****
If you just reject this just for the sake of rejection then I don't know what to tell you.

Forcing this word as hollow-->room and say that they "are working on my hollow place" doesn't seem right.

The allegory of the land as a body is already seen in Isa.
And this is what the text says here.
****

In Aramaic, this word clearly means back.
And I know that you want to focus on Hebrew only, but just ask yourself...
How come this word means "back" in Aramaic?
What is the understanding of this?
what is its background?
It didn't just fall from the tree with this meaning.

[kwrandolph]

Actually, The English words "to" and "too" do have the same background ("too" is a variant of "to").
I saw this at:
https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=too

You have just committed the etymological fallacy. Just because a word had a certain meaning at one time, does not mean that the word necessarily has the same meaning today.

You don’t even have an etymology for your claim here in Hebrew.

I wrote what I wrote, according to what you say. I didn't even come to argue.

Nor did I come to argue. But because this is getting nowhere, I’m planning on not responding to anything more that you say.

And notice that I didn't come against your basic way.
But I only suggest that your axiom is not accurate.
because you should see it as "curve, bend, turn". And it doesn't affect your understanding of any one of the words.

You start with a word in a place where the meaning is not clear, assign a meaning that is nowhere attested in passages whose contexts give a recognized understanding of the word, a meaning that fits your theory, then force that meaning onto the other uses of that word. That’s a backwards methodology.

If you just reject this just for the sake of rejection then I don't know what to tell you.

I reject it based on good lexicographic methodology.

In Aramaic, this word clearly means back.

Just because it’s found in Aramaic with a certain meaning, we must apply the Aramaic meaning to Hebrew? When we read שכח in Hebrew, do you claim that we must read it with the Aramaic meaning? What you just said here is if a word is found in both Hebrew and Aramaic, we should read it with the Aramaic meaning. That’s like asking a German to apply the English meaning when he reads “Boot”.

You and I have opposite methodologies—you start with theory, I with observation.

This discussion appears to be going nowhere, so I see no reason to continue it.

Karl W. Randolph.

[ducky]

Hi Karl,

Actually, The English words "to" and "too" do have the same background ("too" is a variant of "to").
I saw this at:
https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=too

You have just committed the etymological fallacy. Just because a word had a certain meaning at one time, does not mean that the word necessarily has the same meaning today.

I did not commit an etymological fallacy.

It is you that run away from your own claim.
You claimed in your last post that the words "to" and "too" (which use the same sound-letters) don't have the same background since their meaning is different.

This is what you wrote:

To give an example from English. English has five words that are pronounced tū:
• the number two
• a word that indicates excess—too
• a word that is a synonym for also—too
• a word that indicates direction—to
• a word that signifies an infinitive—to

According to your theory, they should all have the same background. Looking at the meanings, they don’t.

So you claimed that they don't have the same background, and you were wrong.
And now you try to switch it on me, while all I did was to show you that you are wrong with your claim about these specific words.

And so, I answered you that these words DO have the same background.
And now you're telling me that I did a fallacy?
How?
It is Your claim that failed.

You don’t even have an etymology for your claim here in Hebrew.

I have the exact same etymology method that you have.
Only that you base it on "hollow", and I base it on "curve".

You start with a word in a place where the meaning is not clear, assign a meaning that is nowhere attested in passages whose contexts give a recognized understanding of the word, a meaning that fits your theory, then force that meaning onto the other uses of that word. That’s a backward methodology.

No. And I don't know why do you say that.

Do you think I just thought about "curve" because we start talking about that word, and then went backward to explain other words? It's funny.

I do the exact same method that you do.

You start it with "hollow", and I start it with "curve".
What's the difference?

In one of my posts, I said that I can understand גב as back in three ways, but I chose for this conversation the one that fits your view.

And I did exactly what you did.

What makes the "hollow" background better than "curve" or "round"?
And why is it that if I do exactly what you do, it is backward, and what you do is forward?

Just because it’s found in Aramaic with a certain meaning, we must apply the Aramaic meaning to Hebrew? When we read שכח in Hebrew, do you claim that we must read it with the Aramaic meaning? What you just said here is if a word is found in both Hebrew and Aramaic, we should read it with the Aramaic meaning.

Really?
Did I say that "we must apply"?
When did I say that?
It seems that you don't read me right, and put my words and thoughts for me.

it is not about "must", but you cannot claim that Aramaic is a strange language to Hebrew.

And also, When did I say that because גב in Aramaic is "back" it gives the proof for Hebrew?
I didn't say that.
So once again you say something that I didn't say and argue with it.

I only said that you should ask yourself about the Aramaic word, and how come it means *in Aramaic* - "back".

And about root שכח...
Since I didn't talk about my theory, (or method) and I only wrote a few notes, you don't really know what it is, and how it sees the Hebrew שכח and the Aramaic שכח.
So there is nothing to talk about something that I didn't write about.

You and I have opposite methodologies—you start with theory, I with observation.

I don't think so.

This discussion appears to be going nowhere, so I see no reason to continue it.

I also think so.