כזבא
Posted: Mon May 12, 2014 8:53 pm
Why does Hitchcock's Bible dictionary define כזבא as "Men liers in wait"?
http://classic.studylight.org/dic/hbn/v ... umber=T588
http://classic.studylight.org/dic/hbn/v ... umber=T588
bhebrew.biblicalhumanities.org
http://bhebrew.biblicalhumanities.org/
http://bhebrew.biblicalhumanities.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=473
Is that just a guess, or is that something everyone agrees on?SteveMiller wrote:Probably he was guessing that the root of the word is כזב, which means "lie" as in to tell a lie
And isn't that based on the root being כזב?SteveMiller wrote:HALOT gives the meaning as deceptive, meaning waterless, intermittent.
Isn't lying in wait kinda deceptive, and isn't all of this based on the root being כזב?SteveMiller wrote:not to lie in wait.
This is just a guess.MGWB wrote:Is that just a guess, or is that something everyone agrees on?SteveMiller wrote:Probably he was guessing that the root of the word is כזב, which means "lie" as in to tell a lie
There are so many other possibilities that it isn’t funny. The following two questions give a couple of possibilities.MGWB wrote:Are there any other possibilities?
Yes, and not only that, but that it’s Hebrew.MGWB wrote:…Isn't … all of this based on the root being כזב?
Who knows? You’ll have to ask him why.MGWB wrote:Thank you.
I take כזב to be a masculine singular noun, and I can understand how the ideas of lying, deception, and lying in wait (to decieve an enemy) could be derrived from this root, but I was curious as to why Hitchcoock would see the plural masculine idea of "men" added by the aleph?
To me the name looks more likely to be Aramaic, with a possible כ prefix. But that’s just a guess based on ignorance.MGWB wrote:Also, (on the assumption that the word is Hebrew) how could זוב be the root?
Why would the initial ז be replaced by an initial כ?