Question on the name Samuel from 1 Sam 1:20

[ducky]

I think there is a good option that the ויסער is not original Niphal.
It coulc be that it was really Qal.
Whether it is an active imperfect Qal (vayyis'ar)
or Passive imperfect Qal (Vayyus'ar) - Which every passive imperfect Qal was not used and was read as imperfect Niphal, and So the MT also voweled it like Niphal.

And I say that because I was a little bit curious and I did a little checking of this root as Niphal in Hebrew.
And I saw that it was never used as Niphal.
Not in Ben-Sirah, Not in Qumran, Not in the Mishna and Talmud, and also not in Aramaic.
I maybe missed, because I took only a quick look about it.
But if it is right, then I think that the ויסער as Niphal, is based on conjugation switch.

************************
Another thing that I have in mind.
I wonder if we should look at root סער as two different roots.
one that is about "rage" (or in that aspect).
And one is about "spreading" or "moving" or "rushing", or soething in these aspects)

[Refael Shalev]

On the other hand there is the unique verb יסוער probably equivalent of פאעל in arabic. There are exceptions.

We can compare with biblical hebrew רגש and the aramaic ארגש. In modren hebrew the meaning is feeling.

[ducky]

It could be that I was wrong and that it was really Niphal, I don't say it can't.
I just thought about this root never found in this conjugation.

On the other hand, I just did a second quick check to see in what context it is found (I should have done that befoe) - and it comes only in the context of "wind" (as washing away, or spreading or blowing and so on).

And I didn't find a case of "feeling" (except one)
so it could be the reason for that , and that the Niphal is in its place.

***
The one exception that I saw is i nBen-Sirah, when it talks about the Solomon, and how he "amazed" (or maybe "scared") the people with his proverbs.

עמים הסערתה
and the root is in Hiphil.

Just like the Hiphil should be seen as a "new" form for that root - and it was probably "alive" even before
It could be that I was wrong with the assumption - and the Niphal for that root was also "alive".

[Jemoh66]

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.

Karl, there's a difference between a cognate word and a borrowed word.

1. Borrowed words behave differently when they are brought into the borrowing language.
2. They often retain their original spelling
3. They can even can have markers they tell you they are borrowed
4. A language may have synonyms, one a cognate, the other a borrowed word.

In English apple and pear are both cognate of each other, as well they are both cognates of the borrowed French fruit.

Before the introduction of the word fruit, apple and pear both meant fruit, and were cognates of the French word fruit. After the introduction of fruit, the borrowed word took on the generic meaning of fruit, and apple and pear are used to designate a specific fruit.

BTW, all three of these are cognates of the Hebrew פרי. In the case of apple and pear they are unborrowed cognates. So they should not be treated the same way etymologically as you would a borrowed term. An unborrowed cognate tells you something about a common parent language. Words like fruit demonstrate that ancient cognates can retain the same semantic value over long Susan's of time and through several daughter and granddaughter languages.

And so we find unrelated languages that have ancient cognates.

Ex. 1. English CuP --> Swahili -KomBe, cup --> Velar-Labial stems

But take a look at these cognates from the same family of languages

2. Heb. כפ [kaf], cup of the hand --> Swahili maKoFi, applause --> same Velar-Labial stem

So here we are with a Sibilant-Velar-Liquid stem that is attested as סער and סער. And two semantic values that may be related, wind and shake. Just a note, French SeCouer, shake, disturb. These two meanings may very well be a result of one being borrowed, causing one of them to take in a more abstract meaning, accounting for the different spelling.

I thought shaken, Disturbed might be better than "blown away."

[Isaac Fried]

Ducky writes

Another thing that I have in mind. I wonder if we should look at root סער as two different roots. one that is about "rage" (or in that aspect). And one is about "spreading" or "moving" or "rushing", or soething in these aspects)

There is no need to "look at" the root סער as "two different roots". There are no two in one סער roots in Hebrew. The root סער means, 'stir', (and hence "storm"). In סערת רגשות, 'emotional storm', the emotional is depicted as a physical simile.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com

[ducky]

Hi Isaac,

Let's see...

Do you link סער with צער and צרר?

(don't tell me all of the roots... just about what I asked).

[kwrandolph]

Karl, there's a difference between a cognate word and a borrowed word.

You think I don’t know that?

1. Borrowed words behave differently when they are brought into the borrowing language.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

2. They often retain their original spelling

True.

3. They can even can have markers they tell you they are borrowed

Not always.

4. A language may have synonyms, one a cognate, the other a borrowed word.

That’s what I suspect happened here—שער being the native word referring to storming, סער being the imported word referring to wind that’s also used for blowing away chaff. But that’s speculation, as we don’t have evidence.

I can just picture what the sailors with Jonah experienced, probably not too much different from what I experienced on the North Atlantic once—wind a force 10 gale, waves over 100 feet high, but no rain. During the short times we were on top of a wave, we could see all the way to a lumpy horizon. Then the ship nosed down to the trough between waves, we could feel the vibration and hear the sound of the engines revving while the propellors pushed air, then we were back to watching the dark grey, foam-splotched next wave towering over us. Can you imagine the terror the sailors with Jonah experienced facing something like this?

In English apple and pear are both cognate of each other, as well they are both cognates of the borrowed French fruit.

I don’t know from where you get your English examples, as all the words you mention have Germanic roots. Even though “fruit” presently has a French spelling, it also has a Germanic root. The ancestors to “apple” and “pear” are found in Old English, referred to specific fruits and the Old English words are closer to modern English than the French words are to English.

BTW, all three of these are cognates of the Hebrew פרי.

Nope. “Cognates” refer to languages from the same language family. English and Biblical Hebrew are not cognates.

And so we find unrelated languages that have ancient cognates.

Those can be just coincidence.

I thought shaken, Disturbed might be better than "blown away."

Translation may come out better that way. But within Biblical Hebrew language itself, this looks like an idiomatic use for a term meaning “blown away”.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Isaac Fried]

Ducky asks

Do you link סער with צער and צרר?

Yes. All Hebrew roots that contain the letter ר R are related by the fact that they all refer to a material state of many parts.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com

[Jemoh66]

Karl, there's a difference between a cognate word and a borrowed word.

You think I don’t know that?

Something you said above came across to me as though your were treated a possible cognates as a borrowed. Or as though you were assuming a word was borrowed. No biggie

1. Borrowed words behave differently when they are brought into the borrowing language.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

I would say typically.

2. They often retain their original spelling

True.

3. They can even can have markers they tell you they are borrowed

Not always.

The reason I mention this is natural cognates as opposed to borrowed words have had more time to undergo phonological change (shifting), such as a stop/plosive slipping into a fricative, or as in our current discussion a sibilant dropping the lateral feature (/ś/-->/s/). (I'm not even sure there's a need to attributing such a phenomenon to pressure from another language. I do think it's entirely plausible to posit the /ś/-->/s/ shift during the Babylonian exile since the data shows Aramaic did not have/ś/ as a phone. It is the best expansion for the sameq-sin puzzle.)
Back to the point, when establishing whether a word is a natural cognate of a borrow, consider the cognates zahav and dhahab. At some point in Ancient Hebrew the/dh/ shifted to a /z/. If at some later point in the development of Hebrew a /dh/ word came into the language by way of borrowing I would make the prediction that we would find that word being pronounced with a /d/, not a /z/.

4. A language may have synonyms, one a cognate, the other a borrowed word.

That’s what I suspect happened here—שער being the native word referring to storming, סער being the imported word referring to wind that’s also used for blowing away chaff. But that’s speculation, as we don’t have evidence.

We are all speculating here; that is the job of linguistic science, to infer to the best explanation. "Storming" is a good guess, but I lean towards Isaac's guess that it is the more generic physical STIR UP. the use of the word HEART points to an idiom, which would favor a physical simile, compare pharaoh's heart was hardened. Idioms are meant to convey an abstract idea by way of a physical expression, the King of Aram's heart was stirred up. In translation there's no need to carry over the word heart, the King of Aram was upset.

I can just picture what the sailors with Jonah experienced, probably not too much different from what I experienced on the North Atlantic once—wind a force 10 gale, waves over 100 feet high, but no rain. During the short times we were on top of a wave, we could see all the way to a lumpy horizon. Then the ship nosed down to the trough between waves, we could feel the vibration and hear the sound of the engines revving while the propellors pushed air, then we were back to watching the dark grey, foam-splotched next wave towering over us. Can you imagine the terror the sailors with Jonah experienced facing something like this?

Storm is definitely appropriate in Jonah 1:4. Notice the parallel
רֽוּחַ־גְּדוֹלָה֙ ----> סַֽעַר־גָּד֖וֹל
Have I ever told you, I love the book of Jonah

In English apple and pear are both cognate of each other, as well they are both cognates of the borrowed French fruit.

I don’t know from where you get your English examples, as all the words you mention have Germanic roots. Even though “fruit” presently has a French spelling, it also has a Germanic root. The ancestors to “apple” and “pear” are found in Old English, referred to specific fruits and the Old English words are closer to modern English than the French words are to English.

No. These two words were "fruit" words, they were dialectical, and split English in two, North and South. This is well established by English historical linguists. Native speakers borrowed fruit from their interaction with the French speaking nobles. After that pear and apple began to be used for these specifics fruits as we know them. This phenomenon is quite well documented in English, French having been spoken for so long on British soil. Another example of this is the warden and guard. Notice how they kept the ancient spelling including the u attached to the g, French spelling went on to drop the u, garde. The u by the way Hellas is understand how warden andguard are ancient cognates long before guard was introduced. /w/ is not only a bilabial, is absolutely a Velar, hence cognates like guerre and war.

Anyhow with the introduction of guard into English, the borrowed word took on the generic idea, while the older native warden was assigned a special meaning. A well established pattern that accounts for the extraordinary amount of words and nuanced synonyms in the English vocabulary.

BTW, all three of these are cognates of the Hebrew פרי.

Nope. “Cognates” refer to languages from the same language family. English and Biblical Hebrew are not cognates.

Yes. I was using cognate very generously there.

And so we find unrelated languages that have ancient cognates.

Those can be just coincidence.

It's undeniable that several hundreds of words across language families are very ancient cognates suggesting an original tongue. Not on the biblical timeline of course. An example of these is presence of COW words across thousands of languages. Take Swahili ng'ombe, the /ng'/ corresponds to the /c/ both velars, and the /mb/ corresponds to /w/, both labials. Through the process of consonantal reversal they can be traced to Hebrew /baqar/, compare Spanish vaca. Quite often the Hebrew weird can bee shown to be three older cognate as its triliteral root will contain the biliteral roots of the other cognates. See for example כֶּלֶב, K-L-B. Greek lukos shares the k and the l while Spanish lobo shares the /l/and the /b/. Interestingly English wolf preserves all three original consonants, the /w/ shifting from the /k/, and the f shifting from the /b/. So if your first name is Caleb and your last name Wolf Todd have the same name twice so to speak.
P-R (bilabial-liquid) words meaning fruit are abundant across language families, but even more abundant are P-R words meaning the number 2. Hundreds of languages. And isn't it interesting that when you have two things you have a pair of them.

I thought shaken, Disturbed might be better than "blown away."

Translation may come out better that way. But within Biblical Hebrew language itself, this looks like an idiomatic use for a term meaning “blown away”.

Karl W. Randolph.

The problem with that is blown away is itself an idiom that means something different in English, something like "wowed". The blowing idea is ok, but I think the intent is to sir. I refer you back to Jonah. God hurls a great wind which causes a great stirring in the sea (storm).
וַֽיהוָ֗ה הֵטִ֤יל רֽוּחַ־גְּדוֹלָה֙ אֶל־הַיָּ֔ם וַיְהִ֥י סַֽעַר־גָּד֖וֹל בַּיָּ֑ם
The wind acts like a stirring stick.

[Isaac Fried]

Jonathan writes

God hurls a great wind which causes a great stirring in the sea (storm).
וַֽיהוָ֗ה הֵטִ֤יל רֽוּחַ־גְּדוֹלָה֙ אֶל־הַיָּ֔ם וַיְהִ֥י סַֽעַר־גָּד֖וֹל בַּיָּ֑ם
The wind acts like a stirring sick.

Yes! Yes! this is good and right.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com