Question on the name Samuel from 1 Sam 1:20

[Refael Shalev]

Hi Karl,
In kings 2 chapter 6 verse 11: "...ויסער לב מלך ארם" the meaning is absolutely not windy.

In psalms 50/3: " וסביביו נשערה מאד"
Job 27/21: "ישאהו קדים וילך וישערהו ממקמו"
The meaning is evidently windy.

The few verses that do exist only intensifies the probability of connection between those roots.

Samuel 2 18/9: " תחת שובך האלה הגדולה" the meaning isn't man made lattice.

[Jonathan Beck]

Hi Karl,
In kings 2 chapter 6 verse 11: "...ויסער לב מלך ארם" the meaning is absolutely not windy.

Yep. The meaning of a word is determined by its occurrence in the Bible and in cognate languages. Meanings of words aren't assigned absolutely. One of the main reasons lexica are made are because it's their job to determine what words mean based on the contexts in which they occur.

Good points.

Jonathan

[kwrandolph]

Hi Karl,
In kings 2 chapter 6 verse 11: "...ויסער לב מלך ארם" the meaning is absolutely not windy.

Oh most certainly wind is meant. “The king of Aram’s heart was blown away…” an idiomatic reference to complete bafflement as to what was going on.

In psalms 50/3: " וסביביו נשערה מאד"
Job 27/21: "ישאהו קדים וילך וישערהו ממקמו"
The meaning is evidently windy.

Who has heard of a storm with pouring rain, lightning and thunder that doesn’t have wind connected with it?

The few verses that do exist only intensifies the probability of connection between those roots.

There may be a connection, may not be a connection, we don’t have evidence either way. One, maybe both words, may be loan words from other languages. But when dealing with their use in Hebrew, they have distinctly different meanings. We don’t base evidence upon speculation, we base it on what we can observe, and what we can observe is that the two have significantly different uses and meanings in the Hebrew that we can observe.

Samuel 2 18/9: " תחת שובך האלה הגדולה" the meaning isn't man made lattice.

It’s also not the word you asked about earlier that has the meaning of man-made lattice. שובך also doesn’t mean thicket.

Yours, Karl W. Randolph.

[Jason Hare]

Oh most certainly wind is meant. “The king of Aram’s heart was blown away…” an idiomatic reference to complete bafflement as to what was going on.

וַיִּסָּעֵר֙ לֵ֣ב מֶֽלֶךְ־אֲרָ֔ם עַל־הַדָּבָ֖ר הַזֶּ֑ה
The heart of the king of Aram was agitated/enraged over this matter.

נִסְעַר means "he was agitated, enraged." It very much does not mean "blown away."

[Jemoh66]

שער/ סער is obviously the ancient cognate of SIROCCO WIND.

https://youtu.be/iPOf1VBrF-g

See also ŠIloko/Jugo wind

https://youtu.be/lMNyFd6wESY

[kwrandolph]

Oh most certainly wind is meant. “The king of Aram’s heart was blown away…” an idiomatic reference to complete bafflement as to what was going on.

וַיִּסָּעֵר֙ לֵ֣ב מֶֽלֶךְ־אֲרָ֔ם עַל־הַדָּבָ֖ר הַזֶּ֑ה
The heart of the king of Aram was agitated/enraged over this matter.

נִסְעַר means "he was agitated, enraged." It very much does not mean "blown away."

Says who? How do you know he got it right?

שער/ סער is obviously the ancient cognate of SIROCCO WIND.

See also ŠIloko/Jugo wind

But as the nature of cognates, it doesn’t come through exactly the same.

If we were able to trace the history of the terms back far enough (unfortunately we can’t trace that history) that one or even both terms may originally have been loan words from cognate languages. Or the loan may have gone the other direction. But today we don’t know that and there’s no way for us to know that. All we have is what’s presently in the text.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Jason Hare]

Oh most certainly wind is meant. “The king of Aram’s heart was blown away…” an idiomatic reference to complete bafflement as to what was going on.

וַיִּסָּעֵר֙ לֵ֣ב מֶֽלֶךְ־אֲרָ֔ם עַל־הַדָּבָ֖ר הַזֶּ֑ה
The heart of the king of Aram was agitated/enraged over this matter.

נִסְעַר means "he was agitated, enraged." It very much does not mean "blown away."

Says who? How do you know he got it right?

And the heart of the king of Syria was sore troubled for this thing... (ASV)
The king of Aram was enraged because of this matter. (CSB)
And the heart of the king of Syria was troubled because of this thing... (DARBY)
And the heart of the king of Syria was troubled for this thing... (DRA)
And the mind of the king of Syria was greatly troubled because of this thing... (ESV)
And the heart of the king of Aram was troubled for this thing... (Geneva Bible)
The king of Aram was enraged because of this matter... (HCSB)
Therefore the heart of the king of Syria was sore troubled for this thing... (KJV)
Now the heart of the king of Aram was enraged over this thing... (NASB)
This made the king of Syria upset. (NET Bible)
This enraged the king of Aram. (NIV)
The mind of the king of Aram was greatly perturbed because of this... (NRSV)
And the heart of the king of Syria was troubled for this thing... (Wycliffe)

Show me one version that says that what the king heard just "blew him away." I'll wait. You're making things up and acting like everyone else is crazy except for you. That's not how things work. Then again, maybe you've just intuitively "read the Bible" more than everyone else in the world to the point that you have a mystical connection to the language that no one else has.

It may surprise you, but נִסְעַר is a word that is used in Israel on a daily basis. Hebrew speakers know what the word means because it's been in continual use for generations. It does NOT mean "blown away" in some weird metaphorical sense. It's related to how the sea RAGES when there's a storm, not to how the wind blows. When a person gets agitated or angry, he is נִסְעָר (this is the participle, by the way).

Out of curiosity, do you even recognize וַיִּסָּעֵר as niphal? According to your reading, it might be וַיִּסְעַר (qal), וַיִּסָּעֵר (niphal), וַיְסָעֵר (piel), וַיְסֹעֵר (poel), or וַיְסֹעַר (pual). There's not really any way to know, is there? Such an elegant system of imprecision and uncertainty.

[ducky]

Hi all,

Edit: I deleted what I wrote before about a possible link- because now I feel that It maybe not true

(By the way, basically, there is no difference in the accurate feelings (as sadness, rage, fear) these are all came from the same aspect, and then was separated to "accurate feelings" - so sometimes the same root that describe "sadness" in one language can be "anger" in another language (or also, in the same language itself)).

***************
This word of שערה//סערה is one word that can be used to show that the ש (as S') was already show signs of loosing its original sound and turn into S.


Because when we examine the letter, and when we examine the same root that is written once with ס and once with ש, we expect to see that the early case is written with ש, and the later case is written in ס.
(And then we can say that it is the normal loss of the original early S' - which later was pronounced as S and written with the letter ס).

But here we see that the word סערה was written already with ס in the non-late era.
And So we can learn from that this switch was already had seeds in the early time.
And then we shouldn't look at Aramaic as if it was the source of that switch in Hebrew (as Karl says).

I will give two more examples from the pre-exile archiology in my next post.

[ducky]

Hi everyone,

In my previous post I wrote about a link between two words in English with the same basic meanings, and I said that we can assume this link also in Hebrew.
But I think I was wrong about that, so I deleted it.

So maybe it is better to focus on this word alone.
And maybe סער is the brother of צער and also of יסר/אסר
which based on putting something/one in stress, whether it is physically or mentally (belongs to root צר).
Maybe.
**********************

The other examples:

In a Script from the 7th century BC there is a line that writes:
ס בן אחיאל הסרט סחבת
(the first ס is completed to the name עמס)

it says סרט
the biblical text writes this root as שרט
And the parallel languages comfirm this writing:
Akkadian: SH-R-T
Arabic: SH-R-T (the SH in Arabic is parallel to the ש=S' in Hebrew)

But in this script, from the 7th century BC, it is written as סרט.
This word written with letter ס and not with ש shows that at least there were seeds of loosing the sound of the ש=S' already in that era. and pronuncing it a S sound. With no relation to Aramaic.

*****************
Another example also concern about the word שער.
there is a list of names from the archiology from Arad
and one of the names is סעריהו
So also here we see an old authentic writings of this root with ס - while we know that this root was also written with ש.

[kwrandolph]

Says who? How do you know he got it right?

And the heart of the king of Syria was sore troubled for this thing... (ASV)…Show me one version that says that what the king heard just "blew him away."

Did you forget that translations are not evidence in this forum?

You're making things up and acting like everyone else is crazy except for you. That's not how things work.

But there are lexicographic principles that are to be followed. And where did I say that those who disagree with me are crazy?

Then again, maybe you've just intuitively "read the Bible" more than everyone else in the world to the point that you have a mystical connection to the language that no one else has.

No mystical connection.

It may surprise you, but נִסְעַר is a word that is used in Israel on a daily basis.

Since when are what happens in cognate languages proof? Modern Israeli Hebrew has a different grammar, many words have different meanings, in short it has all the signs of being a cognate language, not the same language as Biblical Hebrew.

Out of curiosity, do you even recognize וַיִּסָּעֵר as niphal? According to your reading, it might be וַיִּסְעַר (qal), וַיִּסָּעֵר (niphal), וַיְסָעֵר (piel), וַיְסֹעֵר (poel), or וַיְסֹעַר (pual). There's not really any way to know, is there? Such an elegant system of imprecision and uncertainty.

Yes I recognize all that you mention here except there is a way to know. The way to recognize which binyan is from contextual clues. One must also have a good handle on word meanings. Unfortunately, Biblical Hebrew is so little known (yes, I admit we don’t know it as well as some of us claim) that it is sometimes a challenge to know what is being said in the text.

Karl W. Randolph.