ENCYCLOPEDIA of HEBREW LANGUAGE and LINGUISTICS Volume 3 P–Z
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ENCYCLOPEDIA OF HEBREW LANGUAGE AND LINGUISTICS Volume 3 P–Z General Editor Geoffrey Khan Associate Editors Shmuel Bolokzy Steven E. Fassberg Gary A. Rendsburg Aaron D. Rubin Ora R. Schwarzwald Tamar Zewi LEIDEN • BOSTON 2013 © 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3 Table of Contents Volume One Introduction ........................................................................................................................ vii List of Contributors ............................................................................................................ ix Transcription Tables ........................................................................................................... xiii Articles A-F ......................................................................................................................... 1 Volume Two Transcription Tables ........................................................................................................... vii Articles G-O ........................................................................................................................ 1 Volume Three Transcription Tables ........................................................................................................... vii Articles P-Z ......................................................................................................................... 1 Volume Four Transcription Tables ........................................................................................................... vii Index ................................................................................................................................... 1 © 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3 178 polysemy Polysemy 2007a; Morenz 2008), most of the Hebrew consonants have only one phonetic value and none bear logographic readings. Thus, poly- Polysemy is the capacity for a sign, word, semy in the Bible is primarily restricted to the phrase, or sentence to bear multiple meanings in levels of word, phrase, and sentence. Accord- a single context. It was observed in the Hebrew ingly, there are three primary ways that Israelite Bible, both in poetry and in prose, as early as authors could achieve polysemy—by exploiting the medieval times, but became the topic of homonyms, homographs, or single words with scholarly publications only after Casanowicz’s broad semantic ranges. Job’s lament in Job ground-breaking study (1893). Nevertheless, 9.30–31 demonstrates polysemy by way of despite more than a century of scholarly atten- homonyms. tion, the study of polysemy in the Hebrew Bible ִא ִם־ה ְתָר ַ ֥ח ְצ ִתּי ְב ֵמ ָ ֑י־שׁ ֶלג ַ֝ו ֲה ִז ֗כּ ִוֹתי ְבּ ֣בֹר ַכּ ָ ֽפּי: -remains in its infancy. We lack not only a con ָ֭אז ַבּ ַ ֣שּׁ ַחת ִתּ ְט ְבּ ֵ ֑ל ִני -sistent taxonomy for the various types of poly semy and their functions (e.g., Sasson 1976; ±im-hiμr<å™aßtì ∫ë-mè-š<ålÆ:g wa-h≥zikkòμì bë-∫òr cf. Beitzel 1980; Greenstein 1992), but also a kappåy< useful vocabulary (but see now Noegel 2013). ±åz< baš-ša™aμ ti†bëlènì Consequently, scholars have long used the Even if I should wash my hands with snow water, ,bë-∫òr ְבּ ֣בֹר terms ‘punning’ and ‘wordplay’ for all forms and clean my hands of polysemy (and paronomasia), even though You still would dip me in the pit. the former does not distinguish types and the bë-∫òr can mean ְבּ ֣בֹר latter implies that the device had a playful aim, In this passage the phrase which is not always the case ( Paronomasia). ‘with lye’ or ‘in a pit’. Though the readings Scholars have proposed a number of differ- derive from different roots, the former, from ,b-w-r בו"ר b-r-r, and the latter, from בר"ר .ent functions for the various types of polysemy Some types have been seen as demonstrations of the nouns are indistinguishable. Of course, the ,’bë-∫òr is ‘with lye ְבּ ֣בֹר erudition and literary or rhetorical flare (Bohl primary meaning of 1926; Herzberg 1979; Hoffman 1980). Others since it makes little sense for Job to wash his appear to have mnemonic or organizational hands in a pit. Nevertheless, the mention of a ša™aμ) just afterwards ַשׂ ַחת) functions (Freedman 1986; Hurowitz 2001). synonym for pit Still others seem to have comedic or satiri- leads the reader to recontextualize the meaning .bë-∫òr ְבּ ֣בֹר cal aims (Watson 1986:245). Some polysemes of also have a hermeneutic function (Fishbane A second way Israelite authors achieved pol- 1977; Lieberman 1978; Tigay 1983, Noegel ysemy was by means of homographs; words 2007a). More recently, scholars have proposed that look alike, but whose pronunciations dif- that some forms of polysemy are mechanisms fer. This form of polysemy obtains strictly on for unleashing or harnessing the illocution- a visual level. A textbook example appears in ary power of words (Noegel 2007a; 2009a; Job 26.12–13. 2010; 2013), especially when employed in pro- ְ֭בּכֹחוֹ ָרַ ֣גע ַהָיּ֑ם ֝וּ ִב ְת ָבוּנ ֗תוֹ ָ ֣מ ַחץ ָ ֽר ַהב: phetic or ritually empowered contexts (Schorch ְ֭בּרוּחוֹ ָשׁ ַ ֣מ ִים ִשׁ ְפָ ֑רה ֽחֹ ֲל ָלה ָ֝י ֗דוֹ ָנ ָ ֥חשׁ ָבִּֽר ַיח: -Regardless of its many possible func .(2000 bë-úò™ò r<å:ga≠ hay-y<åm u-∫i-μë∫ùn<åμò m<å™aß tions, it is clear that Israelite writers, like their < counterparts in Mesopotamia and Egypt, were råha∫ bë-rù™ò šåmayim< šiƒrå< ™òl≥l yå< ≈ò nå< ™åš< bår< ìa™ particularly skillful at employing polysemy. We < : råga≠ the sea, and by his skill he ָרַ ֣גע also should note that, while polysemes are By his power, he smashed Rahab. extremely difficult to capture in any translation, By his wind the heavens were calmed, his hand pierced there is evidence for attempts to do so in the Sep- the Fleeing Serpent. tuagint, Targumim, Vulgate, and other ancient -rå< ga: ≠ in this passage usually is ren ָרַ ֣גע witnesses (Noegel 1995; 1996a; 2011b). The verb Unlike the hieroglyphic and Akkadian writing dered ‘quieted, stilled’, or the like, thus presup- systems, in which individual signs bear multiple posing the Proto-Semitic root r-g-/. However, phonetic and logographic readings (Bottéro we also may derive the verb from Proto-Semitic 1977; Farber 1986; Loprieno 2000; Noegel r-g-≠ and translate it ‘disturbed’. Both readings © 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3 polysemy 179 are possible, though they are likely to have been 2. Double Entendres distinguished in speech at an early period (Blau 1982). Thus, this polyseme operates only on a A double entendre is an idiom or other figure visual register. of speech that may be understood in two ways. A third way of creating polysemy was to The first is straightforward, innocuous, and exploit the semantic range of a single word. An not the primary meaning intended by the user, example of this appears in Pharoah’s command whereas the second is the intended meaning. ,wë-≠attå< Often double entendres serve as euphemisms ְו ַﬠ ָתּ ֙ה ְל ֣כוּ ִﬠ ְב ֔דוּ :to Moses in Exod. 5.18 lëúù ≠i∫≈ù ‘Now get to your work!’. In this as in the command of David to Uriah, whom ֵ ֥רד :i∫≈ù can mean ‘work, he has just summoned from the battle field≠ ִﬠ ְב ֔דוּ passage the verb >rè≈ lë-∫èμúå< ù-r™aß ragl: Æúå ְל ֵב ְית ָ֖ך ְוּר ַ ֣חץ ַר ְג ֶ ֑ליָך ,labor’ or ‘worship, serve’. In the former sense the statement fits Pharaoh’s command that ‘go down to your house and wash your feet’ the taskmasters increase the workload for the (2 Sam. 11.8). Uriah realizes that David is using Israelites. However, as ‘worship’, it prefigures the polysemous idiom ‘wash one’s feet’ as a Pharaoh’s release of the Israelites to worship euphemism for ‘have sex’. This is clear from Yahweh at Mt. Sinai. Uriah’s reply to David the next morning, when To date scholars have identified at least fif- asked why he did not return to his home: ‘and teen types of polysemy in the Hebrew Bible. I should go to my home to eat and drink and These include: contronymic polysemy, double sleep with my wife!?’ (v. 11). entendre, antanaclasis, unidirectional polysemy, Janus parallelism, double polysemy, bilingual 3. Antanaclasis polysemy, polysemy clusters, numerical poly- semy, gematria, notariqon, acronymy, acrostics Antanaclasis is the repetition of the same word (also telestichs and menostichs), atbash, and or expression each time with a different mean- amphiboly. Each of these may perform dif- ing (Sasson 1976). While antanaclasis can have ferent functions depending on their contexts. a paronomastic effect, it does not involve hom- Moreover, these types and their functions can, onyms, but rather words or expressions of a and often do, overlap. Thus, a case of double single etymological derivation. Thus, it more polysemy or of amphiboly may also constitute properly belongs to the realm of polysemy. The a Janus parallelism, and also be part of a poly- device appears predominantly in poetry (Sasson semy cluster; basic polysemy and antanaclasis 1976:970; Ceresko 1982; Noegel 2007b:21–23). also can serve as double entendres, and so on. However, a classic prose example appears in There appears to be no limit to the sophistica- the narrative concerning the dreams of Pha- tion of the Israelite writers. raoh’s cupbearer and baker (Gen. 40). In this short pericope, we find two different uses of the nå< «å< ±èμ hå-r< òš ‘lift up ָנ ָשׂא ֵאת ָהר ֹאשׁ Contronymic Polysemy phrase .1 the head’ (Marcus 1990). In Gen. 40.13 Joseph A word that bears its own meaning and its uses it to predict that Pharaoh will ‘lift up your opposite is called a contronym (known as head’, i.e., pardon the cupbearer. However, ±a∂dàd ‘opposites’ in Arabic; Nöldeke 1910; when interpreting the