| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Zev
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 8:22 pm Post subject: Re: Arabic word for fat |
 |
|
"Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:bf1e956a-5f3f-43ee-
b481-6480dbc71066@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
[quote]On Jul 29, 2:02 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:0001169b-2cb7-43c4-bd18-
e0c5026b5...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 28, 12:11 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:39bf2d52-2e1e-47c1-ac4d-
ea3de16c6...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 28, 8:25 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:107372d1-bcf7-45b7-
b673-11796a01d...@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 28, 5:12 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Assume it was written by a supernatural genius,
you>ll will explain away, somehow, all difficulties.
You will use the effort itself as a proof of its depth.
Assume it was written by a bunch of primitive story-tellers,
you will find unexplainable contradictions.
You will use that to prove its mundaneness.
I>m trying to take the middle road here,
you and Peter don>t seem to like that.
Just a thought . . .
"Primitive story-tellers"??
You are not taking a "middle road." You are taking an Orthodox
position, that everything the rabbis "find" in the text was there
from
the very beginning.
My beliefs are Orthodox.
The position I>m supporting in this thread is "middle road".
Since there is no other, I accept the text "as is".
Good -- then you recognize that the text "as is" makes no
distinction
between two kinds of fat; any such distinction is post-biblical,
i.e.,
rabbinic.
My position on the issue under discussion is as I stated previously.
Here you are questioning by beliefs.
I discussed with Alan the issue you bring up here.
The Torah gives examples of chelev.
They are all large blocks of fat.
The Rabbis say that this is the defining characteristic.
It seems reasonable to me.
Can you speculate on a different characteristic
which makes sense?
Do you believe that chelev refers to all fat
and simply means, "fat"?
I am not discussing your views of the rabbinic interpretation of the
words. I am simply pointing out that it is a rabbinic interpretation
-- and hence normative for your sect of Judaism -- and not a plain
feature of any vocabulary in Torah.
No argument.
I am making assumptions about the text,
but they they seem to make sense.
That was the point of the questions I asked you.
"Assumptions about the text" are religion, not linguistics.
[/quote]
Religion???
Chelev seems not to be the word for *all* fat.
I assume it isn>t.
The verses give some examples of chelev.
I assume they can be used to make a working definition of it.
An atheist, reading the Bible as no more than
an ancient text which, by luck, had been preserved
more or less accurately,
could make the same or similar assumptions.
I initiated this thread with a 'linguistic' type of question.
I got my answer early on, from Mr. Gursey.
Others brought up religious aspects,
and since I have an ongoing interest, opinion,
and a little knowledge, about these issues,
I contributed to the discussion.
You yourself have taken part in steering
the thread in this direction.
I haven>t come here to proselytize.
I>ve been as helpful as I can.
You, on the other hand, badger me with questions,
contribute nothing on the issue,
and then complain that I>m talking "religion". |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Peter T. Daniels
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 10:00 pm Post subject: Re: Arabic word for fat |
|
|
On Jul 29, 4:22 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]"Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:bf1e956a-5f3f-43ee-
b481-6480dbc71...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 29, 2:02 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:0001169b-2cb7-43c4-bd18-
e0c5026b5...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 28, 12:11 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:39bf2d52-2e1e-47c1-ac4d-
ea3de16c6...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 28, 8:25 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:107372d1-bcf7-45b7-
b673-11796a01d...@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 28, 5:12 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Assume it was written by a supernatural genius,
you>ll will explain away, somehow, all difficulties.
You will use the effort itself as a proof of its depth.
Assume it was written by a bunch of primitive story-tellers,
you will find unexplainable contradictions.
You will use that to prove its mundaneness.
I>m trying to take the middle road here,
you and Peter don>t seem to like that.
Just a thought . . .
"Primitive story-tellers"??
You are not taking a "middle road." You are taking an Orthodox
position, that everything the rabbis "find" in the text was there
from
the very beginning.
My beliefs are Orthodox.
The position I>m supporting in this thread is "middle road".
Since there is no other, I accept the text "as is".
Good -- then you recognize that the text "as is" makes no
distinction
between two kinds of fat; any such distinction is post-biblical,
i.e.,
rabbinic.
My position on the issue under discussion is as I stated previously.
Here you are questioning by beliefs.
I discussed with Alan the issue you bring up here.
The Torah gives examples of chelev.
They are all large blocks of fat.
The Rabbis say that this is the defining characteristic.
It seems reasonable to me.
Can you speculate on a different characteristic
which makes sense?
Do you believe that chelev refers to all fat
and simply means, "fat"?
I am not discussing your views of the rabbinic interpretation of the
words. I am simply pointing out that it is a rabbinic interpretation
-- and hence normative for your sect of Judaism -- and not a plain
feature of any vocabulary in Torah.
No argument.
I am making assumptions about the text,
but they they seem to make sense.
That was the point of the questions I asked you.
"Assumptions about the text" are religion, not linguistics.
Religion???
Chelev seems not to be the word for *all* fat.
I assume it isn>t.
[/quote]
We happen not to have any words for any other kind of fat stemming
from the same speech-community.
[quote]The verses give some examples of chelev.
I assume they can be used to make a working definition of it.
[/quote]
Not in the absence of any other words from the same semantic field.
[quote]An atheist, reading the Bible as no more than
an ancient text which, by luck, had been preserved
more or less accurately,
could make the same or similar assumptions.
I initiated this thread with a 'linguistic' type of question.
I got my answer early on, from Mr. Gursey.
Others brought up religious aspects,
and since I have an ongoing interest, opinion,
and a little knowledge, about these issues,
I contributed to the discussion.
You yourself have taken part in steering
the thread in this direction.
I haven>t come here to proselytize.
I>ve been as helpful as I can.
You, on the other hand, badger me with questions,
contribute nothing on the issue,
and then complain that I>m talking "religion".
[/quote]
Well, you>re certainly not talking linguistics! |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Zev
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 6:14 am Post subject: Re: Arabic word for fat |
|
|
"Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1b3c54e5-d5fa-4d71-bbf4-
b52b5e7fe6a5@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
[quote]On Jul 29, 4:22 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:bf1e956a-5f3f-43ee-
b481-6480dbc71...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 29, 2:02 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:0001169b-2cb7-43c4-bd18-
e0c5026b5...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 28, 12:11 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:39bf2d52-2e1e-47c1-ac4d-
ea3de16c6...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 28, 8:25 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:107372d1-bcf7-45b7-
b673-11796a01d...@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 28, 5:12 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Assume it was written by a supernatural genius,
you>ll will explain away, somehow, all difficulties.
You will use the effort itself as a proof of its depth.
Assume it was written by a bunch of primitive story-tellers,
you will find unexplainable contradictions.
You will use that to prove its mundaneness.
I>m trying to take the middle road here,
you and Peter don>t seem to like that.
Just a thought . . .
"Primitive story-tellers"??
You are not taking a "middle road." You are taking an Orthodox
position, that everything the rabbis "find" in the text was
there
from
the very beginning.
My beliefs are Orthodox.
The position I>m supporting in this thread is "middle road".
Since there is no other, I accept the text "as is".
Good -- then you recognize that the text "as is" makes no
distinction
between two kinds of fat; any such distinction is post-biblical,
i.e.,
rabbinic.
My position on the issue under discussion is as I stated
previously.
Here you are questioning by beliefs.
I discussed with Alan the issue you bring up here.
The Torah gives examples of chelev.
They are all large blocks of fat.
The Rabbis say that this is the defining characteristic.
It seems reasonable to me.
Can you speculate on a different characteristic
which makes sense?
Do you believe that chelev refers to all fat
and simply means, "fat"?
I am not discussing your views of the rabbinic interpretation of the
words. I am simply pointing out that it is a rabbinic interpretation
-- and hence normative for your sect of Judaism -- and not a plain
feature of any vocabulary in Torah.
No argument.
I am making assumptions about the text,
but they they seem to make sense.
That was the point of the questions I asked you.
"Assumptions about the text" are religion, not linguistics.
Religion???
Chelev seems not to be the word for *all* fat.
I assume it isn>t.
We happen not to have any words for any other kind of fat stemming
from the same speech-community.
The verses give some examples of chelev.
I assume they can be used to make a working definition of it.
Not in the absence of any other words from the same semantic field.
[/quote]
Assuming there really aren>t any, that>s a point against me.
But it may be that other fat was considered part of the meat,
not referred to, and didn>t need a name.
Remember, chelev seems to be large masses of fat,
not within muscle tissue.
Other fat, although physiologically identical,
may have been considered something else.
If the words for fat in other Semitic languages
are apparent cognates of chelev
and obviously always meant *all* kinds of fat,
that would be another point in your favor.
OTOH, if this is not so, it may be that one of those words
for fat may be a cognate of some Hebrew word,
no longer extant, which in Hebrew meant "all other fat",
and which is used in the other language,
by extension, to mean "all fat".
In fact, even if we had some way of knowing
that no such cognate exists, that doesn>t prove
that some word for this didn>t exist in Hebrew
which was lost through disuse.
Is that so far-fetched?
If my reasoning makes any sense,
There may have been a word for the
'other' fat in Ancient Hebrew,
and even if there wasn>t,
chelev may still have meant *only* large blocks of fat.
[quote]An atheist, reading the Bible as no more than
an ancient text which, by luck, had been preserved
more or less accurately,
could make the same or similar assumptions.
I initiated this thread with a 'linguistic' type of question.
I got my answer early on, from Mr. Gursey.
Others brought up religious aspects,
and since I have an ongoing interest, opinion,
and a little knowledge, about these issues,
I contributed to the discussion.
You yourself have taken part in steering
the thread in this direction.
I haven>t come here to proselytize.
I>ve been as helpful as I can.
You, on the other hand, badger me with questions,
contribute nothing on the issue,
and then complain that I>m talking "religion".
Well, you>re certainly not talking linguistics![/quote] |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Zev
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 6:49 am Post subject: Re: Arabic word for fat |
|
|
"alan" <in_flagrante@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:_1Qjk.9210$L_.4269@flpi150.ffdc.sbc.com...
[quote]"Zev" <zev_horn@yahoo.com> wrote
[...]
See S.R. Hirsch>s "Commentary on the Pentateuch",
comments on Leviticus 3:3 for a comparison with chalav - milk.
[...]
Zev, I haven>t been able to get a hold of Hirsch>s Commentary. If it>s
not too much trouble, could you briefly outline what he had to say about
chelev and chalav?
Thanks
--
alan
[/quote]
"Chelev is the fat which is separated from the organism of the animal,
which is set aside for future use for the necessary nourishment,
for the upkeep of the animal itself,
as chalav, milk, is for the necessary upkeep of the species.
By chelev only such fat is understood
which has not grown intermingled with the flesh
but which lies over the flesh or on it,
covered by a skin or membrane which is easily peeled off
[here he quotes Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 64:4 - totav krum
v>niklaf]".
S.R. Hirsch continues with a discussion of the exact chelev
mentioned in the following verses.
This is, of course, an English translation (by his grandson)
of the original German.
HTH |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
alan
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 7:04 am Post subject: Re: Arabic word for fat |
|
|
"Zev" <zev_horn@yahoo.com> wrote
[quote][...]
See S.R. Hirsch>s "Commentary on the Pentateuch",
comments on Leviticus 3:3 for a comparison with chalav - milk.
[...][/quote]
Zev, I haven>t been able to get a hold of Hirsch>s Commentary. If it>s not
too much trouble, could you briefly outline what he had to say about chelev
and chalav?
Thanks
--
alan |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Zev
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 12:01 pm Post subject: Re: Arabic word for fat |
|
|
"Paul J Kriha" <paul.nospam.kriha@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:489028e8@clear.net.nz...
[quote]Ant×£nio Marques wrote:
Zev wrote:
I haven>t any idea. I don>t know how a Hebrew word could be
transliterated "Check."
I think it>s silly to transliterate as "Chek.",
knowing the source is English "Check."
The point of transliteration is to render tokens of a script in a
different script. That emphatically makes the source of the words
themselves not usable.
How can Zev be so sure the source was
American "check" and not any-other-English "cheque". :-)
[/quote]
He can>t be.
You>re obviously right.
This word certainly entered Hebrew in Palestine,
during the British Mandate, IOW, from the word "cheque".
But the flak I>m getting on this is becoming absurd.
My God! Sci.lang is full of sticklers! |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Peter T. Daniels
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 12:28 pm Post subject: Re: Arabic word for fat |
|
|
On Jul 30, 2:14 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]"Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1b3c54e5-d5fa-4d71-bbf4-
b52b5e7fe...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 29, 4:22 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:bf1e956a-5f3f-43ee-
b481-6480dbc71...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 29, 2:02 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:0001169b-2cb7-43c4-bd18-
e0c5026b5...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 28, 12:11 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:39bf2d52-2e1e-47c1-ac4d-
ea3de16c6...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 28, 8:25 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:107372d1-bcf7-45b7-
b673-11796a01d...@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 28, 5:12 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Assume it was written by a supernatural genius,
you>ll will explain away, somehow, all difficulties.
You will use the effort itself as a proof of its depth.
Assume it was written by a bunch of primitive story-tellers,
you will find unexplainable contradictions.
You will use that to prove its mundaneness.
I>m trying to take the middle road here,
you and Peter don>t seem to like that.
Just a thought . . .
"Primitive story-tellers"??
You are not taking a "middle road." You are taking an Orthodox
position, that everything the rabbis "find" in the text was
there
from
the very beginning.
My beliefs are Orthodox.
The position I>m supporting in this thread is "middle road".
Since there is no other, I accept the text "as is".
Good -- then you recognize that the text "as is" makes no
distinction
between two kinds of fat; any such distinction is post-biblical,
i.e.,
rabbinic.
My position on the issue under discussion is as I stated
previously.
Here you are questioning by beliefs.
I discussed with Alan the issue you bring up here.
The Torah gives examples of chelev.
They are all large blocks of fat.
The Rabbis say that this is the defining characteristic.
It seems reasonable to me.
Can you speculate on a different characteristic
which makes sense?
Do you believe that chelev refers to all fat
and simply means, "fat"?
I am not discussing your views of the rabbinic interpretation of the
words. I am simply pointing out that it is a rabbinic interpretation
-- and hence normative for your sect of Judaism -- and not a plain
feature of any vocabulary in Torah.
No argument.
I am making assumptions about the text,
but they they seem to make sense.
That was the point of the questions I asked you.
"Assumptions about the text" are religion, not linguistics.
Religion???
Chelev seems not to be the word for *all* fat.
I assume it isn>t.
We happen not to have any words for any other kind of fat stemming
from the same speech-community.
The verses give some examples of chelev.
I assume they can be used to make a working definition of it.
Not in the absence of any other words from the same semantic field.
Assuming there really aren>t any, that>s a point against me.
But it may be that other fat was considered part of the meat,
not referred to, and didn>t need a name.
[/quote]
So the people who composed the regulations and wrote them down weren>t
human?
What language have you ever heard of that doesn>t provide a name for
every phenomenon in its environment, either as an individual word or
as a simple phrase?
[quote]Remember, chelev seems to be large masses of fat,
not within muscle tissue.
Other fat, although physiologically identical,
may have been considered something else.
[/quote]
Which they never had occasion to mention?
[quote]If the words for fat in other Semitic languages
are apparent cognates of chelev
and obviously always meant *all* kinds of fat,
that would be another point in your favor.
[/quote]
Even very closely related languages can have divergent vocabulary.
There>s no _harag_ 'kill' in any other Semitic language.
[quote]OTOH, if this is not so, it may be that one of those words
for fat may be a cognate of some Hebrew word,
no longer extant, which in Hebrew meant "all other fat",
and which is used in the other language,
by extension, to mean "all fat".
[/quote]
AND SUCH A WORD HAPPENS NOT TO BE PRESERVED IN ANY EXTANT HEBREW
DOCUMENT, SO IT IS POINTLESS TO SPECULATE ON WHAT IT MAY HAVE BEEN.
[quote]In fact, even if we had some way of knowing
that no such cognate exists, that doesn>t prove
that some word for this didn>t exist in Hebrew
which was lost through disuse.
Is that so far-fetched?
[/quote]
That is exactly what I have been saying. But you cannot _then_ assert
that XXX "was" or "must have been" the word for it.
[quote]If my reasoning makes any sense,
There may have been a word for the
'other' fat in Ancient Hebrew,
and even if there wasn>t,
chelev may still have meant *only* large blocks of fat.
[/quote]
Or it may have been distinguished from other kinds of fat on grounds
that you>re totally unaware of. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Peter T. Daniels
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 12:30 pm Post subject: Re: Arabic word for fat |
|
|
On Jul 30, 8:01 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]"Paul J Kriha" <paul.nospam.kr...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in messagenews:489028e8@clear.net.nz...
Ant×£nio Marques wrote:
Zev wrote:
I haven>t any idea. I don>t know how a Hebrew word could be
transliterated "Check."
I think it>s silly to transliterate as "Chek.",
knowing the source is English "Check."
The point of transliteration is to render tokens of a script in a
different script. That emphatically makes the source of the words
themselves not usable.
How can Zev be so sure the source was
American "check" and not any-other-English "cheque". :-)
He can>t be.
You>re obviously right.
This word certainly entered Hebrew in Palestine,
during the British Mandate, IOW, from the word "cheque".
But the flak I>m getting on this is becoming absurd.
My God! Sci.lang is full of sticklers!
[/quote]
Do you see the first three letters in its name? Do you know what they
stand for?
For that matter, have you ever read Talmud? Would you call rabbinic
disputation something other than the discussions of "sticklers"? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Paul J Kriha
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 12:56 pm Post subject: Re: Arabic word for fat |
|
|
António Marques wrote:
[quote]Zev wrote:
I haven>t any idea. I don>t know how a Hebrew word could be
transliterated "Check."
I think it>s silly to transliterate as "Chek.",
knowing the source is English "Check."
The point of transliteration is to render tokens of a script in a
different script. That emphatically makes the source of the words
themselves not usable.
[/quote]
How can Zev be so sure the source was
American "check" and not any-other-English "cheque". :-)
pjk |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Zev
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:48 pm Post subject: Re: Arabic word for fat |
|
|
On Jul 30, 3:30 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
[quote]On Jul 30, 8:01 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Paul J Kriha" <paul.nospam.kr...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in
messagenews:489028e8@clear.net.nz...
Ant×£nio Marques wrote:
Zev wrote:
I haven>t any idea. I don>t know how a Hebrew word could be
transliterated "Check."
I think it>s silly to transliterate as "Chek.",
knowing the source is English "Check."
The point of transliteration is to render tokens of a script in a
different script. That emphatically makes the source of the words
themselves not usable.
How can Zev be so sure the source was
American "check" and not any-other-English "cheque". :-)
He can>t be.
You>re obviously right.
This word certainly entered Hebrew in Palestine,
during the British Mandate, IOW, from the word "cheque".
But the flak I>m getting on this is becoming absurd.
My God! Sci.lang is full of sticklers!
Do you see the first three letters in its name? Do you know what they
stand for?
[/quote]
Please don>t tell me you criticized my spelling
of "check" in the name of science.
We both know all I wanted to do was give
some examples of "Ch" in Modern Hebrew.
That purpose was served well enough.
If you wanted to correct me, a non-linguist,
you could have told me what rule I was breaking,
instead of making the comment you made.
[quote]For that matter, have you ever read Talmud? Would you call rabbinic
disputation something other than the discussions of "sticklers"?
[/quote]
The parts of the Gemara you are referring to
are better called "text analysis". |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Zev
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 10:16 pm Post subject: Re: Arabic word for fat |
|
|
"Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:61985a85-
a05c-4244-9a63-3c30d9ba47f2@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
[quote]On Jul 30, 2:14 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1b3c54e5-d5fa-4d71-bbf4-
b52b5e7fe...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 29, 4:22 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:bf1e956a-5f3f-43ee-
b481-6480dbc71...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 29, 2:02 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:0001169b-2cb7-43c4-bd18-
e0c5026b5...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 28, 12:11 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:39bf2d52-2e1e-47c1-ac4d-
ea3de16c6...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 28, 8:25 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:107372d1-bcf7-45b7-
b673-11796a01d...@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 28, 5:12 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Assume it was written by a supernatural genius,
you>ll will explain away, somehow, all difficulties.
You will use the effort itself as a proof of its depth.
Assume it was written by a bunch of primitive
story-tellers,
you will find unexplainable contradictions.
You will use that to prove its mundaneness.
I>m trying to take the middle road here,
you and Peter don>t seem to like that.
Just a thought . . .
"Primitive story-tellers"??
You are not taking a "middle road." You are taking an
Orthodox
position, that everything the rabbis "find" in the text was
there
from
the very beginning.
My beliefs are Orthodox.
The position I>m supporting in this thread is "middle road".
Since there is no other, I accept the text "as is".
Good -- then you recognize that the text "as is" makes no
distinction
between two kinds of fat; any such distinction is
post-biblical,
i.e.,
rabbinic.
My position on the issue under discussion is as I stated
previously.
Here you are questioning by beliefs.
I discussed with Alan the issue you bring up here.
The Torah gives examples of chelev.
They are all large blocks of fat.
The Rabbis say that this is the defining characteristic.
It seems reasonable to me.
Can you speculate on a different characteristic
which makes sense?
Do you believe that chelev refers to all fat
and simply means, "fat"?
I am not discussing your views of the rabbinic interpretation of
the
words. I am simply pointing out that it is a rabbinic
interpretation
-- and hence normative for your sect of Judaism -- and not a
plain
feature of any vocabulary in Torah.
No argument.
I am making assumptions about the text,
but they they seem to make sense.
That was the point of the questions I asked you.
"Assumptions about the text" are religion, not linguistics.
Religion???
Chelev seems not to be the word for *all* fat.
I assume it isn>t.
We happen not to have any words for any other kind of fat stemming
from the same speech-community.
The verses give some examples of chelev.
I assume they can be used to make a working definition of it.
Not in the absence of any other words from the same semantic field.
Assuming there really aren>t any, that>s a point against me.
But it may be that other fat was considered part of the meat,
not referred to, and didn>t need a name.
So the people who composed the regulations and wrote them down weren>t
human?
What language have you ever heard of that doesn>t provide a name for
every phenomenon in its environment, either as an individual word or
as a simple phrase?
[/quote]
English?
I>ll give this to you another way.
What language have you ever heard of that provides
a name for *every* phenomenon in its environment,
either as an individual word or as a simple phrase?
Please explain your answer.
[quote]Remember, chelev seems to be large masses of fat,
not within muscle tissue.
Other fat, although physiologically identical,
may have been considered something else.
Which they never had occasion to mention?
[/quote]
Are you sure that no part of Ancient Hebrew
has been lost because it had no place in scripture?
The number of Hebrew roots found in the OT
is less than 7000.
Is it so hard to believe that the spoken language
contained a few hundred more?
[quote]If the words for fat in other Semitic languages
are apparent cognates of chelev
and obviously always meant *all* kinds of fat,
that would be another point in your favor.
Even very closely related languages can have divergent vocabulary.
There>s no _harag_ 'kill' in any other Semitic language.
[/quote]
There is in Yiddish though.
Maybe there>s something "Jewish" about it :-(
At any rate, if the possibility I mentioned above is not the case,
all is not lost.
You just don>t get your point.
[quote]OTOH, if this is not so, it may be that one of those words
for fat may be a cognate of some Hebrew word,
no longer extant, which in Hebrew meant "all other fat",
and which is used in the other language,
by extension, to mean "all fat".
AND SUCH A WORD HAPPENS NOT TO BE PRESERVED IN ANY EXTANT HEBREW
DOCUMENT, SO IT IS POINTLESS TO SPECULATE ON WHAT IT MAY HAVE BEEN.
In fact, even if we had some way of knowing
that no such cognate exists, that doesn>t prove
that some word for this didn>t exist in Hebrew
which was lost through disuse.
Is that so far-fetched?
That is exactly what I have been saying. But you cannot _then_ assert
that XXX "was" or "must have been" the word for it.
[/quote]
Right!
[quote]If my reasoning makes any sense,
There may have been a word for the
'other' fat in Ancient Hebrew,
and even if there wasn>t,
chelev may still have meant *only* large blocks of fat.
Or it may have been distinguished from other kinds of fat on grounds
that you>re totally unaware of.[/quote] |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Peter T. Daniels
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 2:24 am Post subject: Re: Arabic word for fat |
|
|
On Jul 30, 5:48 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On Jul 30, 3:30 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
On Jul 30, 8:01 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Paul J Kriha" <paul.nospam.kr...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in
messagenews:489028e8@clear.net.nz...
Ant×£nio Marques wrote:
Zev wrote:
I haven>t any idea. I don>t know how a Hebrew word could be
transliterated "Check."
I think it>s silly to transliterate as "Chek.",
knowing the source is English "Check."
The point of transliteration is to render tokens of a script in a
different script. That emphatically makes the source of the words
themselves not usable.
How can Zev be so sure the source was
American "check" and not any-other-English "cheque". :-)
He can>t be.
You>re obviously right.
This word certainly entered Hebrew in Palestine,
during the British Mandate, IOW, from the word "cheque".
But the flak I>m getting on this is becoming absurd.
My God! Sci.lang is full of sticklers!
Do you see the first three letters in its name? Do you know what they
stand for?
Please don>t tell me you criticized my spelling
of "check" in the name of science.
[/quote]
I didn>t criticize your spelling of "check." I noted that it>s not a
possible transliteration of a Hebrew word.
[quote]We both know all I wanted to do was give
some examples of "Ch" in Modern Hebrew.
That purpose was served well enough.
If you wanted to correct me, a non-linguist,
you could have told me what rule I was breaking,
instead of making the comment you made.
[/quote]
You were breaking the rule that a transliteration is a letter-for-
letter correspondence.
[quote]For that matter, have you ever read Talmud? Would you call rabbinic
disputation something other than the discussions of "sticklers"?
The parts of the Gemara you are referring to
are better called "text analysis".
[/quote]
"Horses sweat, men perspire, ladies gently glow." |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Peter T. Daniels
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 2:30 am Post subject: Re: Arabic word for fat |
|
|
On Jul 30, 6:16 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]"Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in message
What language have you ever heard of that doesn>t provide a name for
every phenomenon in its environment, either as an individual word or
as a simple phrase?
English?
I>ll give this to you another way.
What language have you ever heard of that provides
a name for *every* phenomenon in its environment,
either as an individual word or as a simple phrase?
Please explain your answer.
[/quote]
Anything can be said in any language.
[quote]Remember, chelev seems to be large masses of fat,
not within muscle tissue.
Other fat, although physiologically identical,
may have been considered something else.
Which they never had occasion to mention?
Are you sure that no part of Ancient Hebrew
has been lost because it had no place in scripture?
The number of Hebrew roots found in the OT
is less than 7000.
Is it so hard to believe that the spoken language
contained a few hundred more?
[/quote]
No, it presumably had as many lexical items as any other language:
25,000 - 30,000 in common use.
Have you not noticed that that is what I have been telling you? We do
not have any other words for "fat" in Biblical Hebrew. The rabbis
wanted to make a distinction between this one and some other one, so
they took another word, not in TaNaKh, and used it for that purpose.
That does not license you to claim that that particular lexical item
was in use in the language in that meaning.
[quote]If the words for fat in other Semitic languages
are apparent cognates of chelev
and obviously always meant *all* kinds of fat,
that would be another point in your favor.
Even very closely related languages can have divergent vocabulary.
There>s no _harag_ 'kill' in any other Semitic language.
There is in Yiddish though.
[/quote]
Yiddish is not a Semitic language.
[quote]Maybe there>s something "Jewish" about it :-(
[/quote]
About what, killing? The God of the Bible certainly seems to have been
in favor of it!
[quote]At any rate, if the possibility I mentioned above is not the case,
all is not lost.
You just don>t get your point.
[/quote]
Hunh?
[quote]OTOH, if this is not so, it may be that one of those words
for fat may be a cognate of some Hebrew word,
no longer extant, which in Hebrew meant "all other fat",
and which is used in the other language,
by extension, to mean "all fat".
AND SUCH A WORD HAPPENS NOT TO BE PRESERVED IN ANY EXTANT HEBREW
DOCUMENT, SO IT IS POINTLESS TO SPECULATE ON WHAT IT MAY HAVE BEEN.
In fact, even if we had some way of knowing
that no such cognate exists, that doesn>t prove
that some word for this didn>t exist in Hebrew
which was lost through disuse.
Is that so far-fetched?
That is exactly what I have been saying. But you cannot _then_ assert
that XXX "was" or "must have been" the word for it.
Right!
If my reasoning makes any sense,
There may have been a word for the
'other' fat in Ancient Hebrew,
and even if there wasn>t,
chelev may still have meant *only* large blocks of fat.
Or it may have been distinguished from other kinds of fat on grounds
that you>re totally unaware of.[/quote] |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Zev
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 5:24 am Post subject: Re: Arabic word for fat |
|
|
"Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:
82399984-7bfc-4663-88cc-8f8abb3438b3@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
[quote]On Jul 30, 6:16 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in message
What language have you ever heard of that doesn>t provide a name for
every phenomenon in its environment, either as an individual word or
as a simple phrase?
English?
I>ll give this to you another way.
What language have you ever heard of that provides
a name for *every* phenomenon in its environment,
either as an individual word or as a simple phrase?
Please explain your answer.
Anything can be said in any language.
Remember, chelev seems to be large masses of fat,
not within muscle tissue.
Other fat, although physiologically identical,
may have been considered something else.
Which they never had occasion to mention?
Are you sure that no part of Ancient Hebrew
has been lost because it had no place in scripture?
The number of Hebrew roots found in the OT
is less than 7000.
Is it so hard to believe that the spoken language
contained a few hundred more?
No, it presumably had as many lexical items as any other language:
25,000 - 30,000 in common use.
Have you not noticed that that is what I have been telling you? We do
not have any other words for "fat" in Biblical Hebrew. The rabbis
wanted to make a distinction between this one and some other one, so
they took another word, not in TaNaKh, and used it for that purpose.
That does not license you to claim that that particular lexical item
was in use in the language in that meaning.
[/quote]
The Rabbis pcked "shuman" for that purpose.
I never claimed that "that particular lexical item
was in use in the language in that meaning".
[quote]If the words for fat in other Semitic languages
are apparent cognates of chelev
and obviously always meant *all* kinds of fat,
that would be another point in your favor.
Even very closely related languages can have divergent vocabulary.
There>s no _harag_ 'kill' in any other Semitic language.
There is in Yiddish though.
Yiddish is not a Semitic language.
Maybe there>s something "Jewish" about it :-(
About what, killing? The God of the Bible certainly seems to have been
in favor of it!
At any rate, if the possibility I mentioned above is not the case,
all is not lost.
You just don>t get your point.
Hunh?
[/quote]
I said:
"If the words for fat in other Semitic languages
are apparent cognates of chelev
and obviously always meant *all* kinds of fat,
that would be another point in your favor".
You said:
"Even very closely related languages can have divergent vocabulary.
There>s no _harag_ 'kill' in any other Semitic language".
My response was that if the "I said" paragraph is not true,
I won>t give the point I offered you.
It means that you couldn>t use that fact
as proof for your claim.
It doesn>t mean that the non-existance
of this fact is a proof for *my* claim.
[quote]OTOH, if this is not so, it may be that one of those words
for fat may be a cognate of some Hebrew word,
no longer extant, which in Hebrew meant "all other fat",
and which is used in the other language,
by extension, to mean "all fat".
AND SUCH A WORD HAPPENS NOT TO BE PRESERVED IN ANY EXTANT HEBREW
DOCUMENT, SO IT IS POINTLESS TO SPECULATE ON WHAT IT MAY HAVE BEEN.
In fact, even if we had some way of knowing
that no such cognate exists, that doesn>t prove
that some word for this didn>t exist in Hebrew
which was lost through disuse.
Is that so far-fetched?
That is exactly what I have been saying. But you cannot _then_ assert
that XXX "was" or "must have been" the word for it.
Right!
If my reasoning makes any sense,
There may have been a word for the
'other' fat in Ancient Hebrew,
and even if there wasn>t,
chelev may still have meant *only* large blocks of fat.
Or it may have been distinguished from other kinds of fat on grounds
that you>re totally unaware of.[/quote] |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Zev
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 5:26 am Post subject: Re: Arabic word for fat |
|
|
"Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:
82399984-7bfc-4663-88cc-8f8abb3438b3@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
[quote]On Jul 30, 6:16 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in message
What language have you ever heard of that doesn>t provide a name for
every phenomenon in its environment, either as an individual word or
as a simple phrase?
English?
I>ll give this to you another way.
What language have you ever heard of that provides
a name for *every* phenomenon in its environment,
either as an individual word or as a simple phrase?
Please explain your answer.
Anything can be said in any language.
Remember, chelev seems to be large masses of fat,
not within muscle tissue.
Other fat, although physiologically identical,
may have been considered something else.
Which they never had occasion to mention?
Are you sure that no part of Ancient Hebrew
has been lost because it had no place in scripture?
The number of Hebrew roots found in the OT
is less than 7000.
Is it so hard to believe that the spoken language
contained a few hundred more?
No, it presumably had as many lexical items as any other language:
25,000 - 30,000 in common use.
Have you not noticed that that is what I have been telling you? We do
not have any other words for "fat" in Biblical Hebrew. The rabbis
wanted to make a distinction between this one and some other one, so
they took another word, not in TaNaKh, and used it for that purpose.
That does not license you to claim that that particular lexical item
was in use in the language in that meaning.
[/quote]
The Rabbis pcked "shuman" for that purpose.
I never claimed that "that particular lexical item
was in use in the language in that meaning".
[quote]If the words for fat in other Semitic languages
are apparent cognates of chelev
and obviously always meant *all* kinds of fat,
that would be another point in your favor.
Even very closely related languages can have divergent vocabulary.
There>s no _harag_ 'kill' in any other Semitic language.
There is in Yiddish though.
Yiddish is not a Semitic language.
Maybe there>s something "Jewish" about it :-(
About what, killing? The God of the Bible certainly seems to have been
in favor of it!
At any rate, if the possibility I mentioned above is not the case,
all is not lost.
You just don>t get your point.
Hunh?
[/quote]
I said:
"If the words for fat in other Semitic languages
are apparent cognates of chelev
and obviously always meant *all* kinds of fat,
that would be another point in your favor".
You said:
"Even very closely related languages can have divergent vocabulary.
There>s no _harag_ 'kill' in any other Semitic language".
My response was that if the "I said" paragraph is not true,
I won>t give the point I offered you.
It means that you couldn>t use that fact
as proof for your claim.
It doesn>t mean that the non-existance
of this fact is a proof for *my* claim.
[quote]OTOH, if this is not so, it may be that one of those words
for fat may be a cognate of some Hebrew word,
no longer extant, which in Hebrew meant "all other fat",
and which is used in the other language,
by extension, to mean "all fat".
AND SUCH A WORD HAPPENS NOT TO BE PRESERVED IN ANY EXTANT HEBREW
DOCUMENT, SO IT IS POINTLESS TO SPECULATE ON WHAT IT MAY HAVE BEEN.
In fact, even if we had some way of knowing
that no such cognate exists, that doesn>t prove
that some word for this didn>t exist in Hebrew
which was lost through disuse.
Is that so far-fetched?
That is exactly what I have been saying. But you cannot _then_ assert
that XXX "was" or "must have been" the word for it.
Right!
If my reasoning makes any sense,
There may have been a word for the
'other' fat in Ancient Hebrew,
and even if there wasn>t,
chelev may still have meant *only* large blocks of fat.
Or it may have been distinguished from other kinds of fat on grounds
that you>re totally unaware of.[/quote] |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
