Re: The status of the glottal stop in Hebrew
|From:||Dan Sulani <dansulani@...>|
|Date:||Friday, July 9, 2004, 8:36|
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steg Belsky" <draqonfayir@...>
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2004 6:06 PM
Subject: Re: The status of the glottal stop in Hebrew
On 8 July, Steg Belsky wrote:
> > Yes, it does. But "Chumash" also refers to
> > a single bound volume containing all five books together.
> > Since "chumash" comes from the Hebrew word for
> > "five" (/xameS/, or more properly, since it starts with
> > the letter "hhet" /HameS/ ), it's likely, IMHO,
> > that this was the primary meaning and that the meaning
> > of "one of the five books" was derived by extension.
> > Dan Sulani
> So you're saying that the basic meaning of "hhumash" is _hhamishiya_
> ('set of five') and not 'fifth'?
That's what I had always understood.
However, checking with my Even-Shoshan
Hebrew-Hebrew dictionary, it derives "Chumash"
from the word /HomeS/, meaning one-fifth,
and cites as one definition: each one of the five
books of the Torah (and if that wasn't enough, it goes on
to _name_ each of the five! :-P ). No mention of "Chumash" as
referring to the whole collection.
So, I guess I stand corrected as to Hebrew usage.
Perhaps my understanding came from Yiddish usage.
Uriel Weinreich, in his Yiddish-English dictionary gives,
as the meaning of "hhet-vav-mem-shin" : "Pentateuch", which
I have always understood, in English, as referring to
all five books collectively (ie "the five") and not separatetly.)
Anyhow, right or wrong, that's been my experience:
if someone asks me to bring them a "chumash", I have always
been expected to bring him the one volume set of five,
otherwise he'll specify (ie bring me a "chumash bamidbar",
or one of the other five books, bound separately.)
likehsna rtem zuv tikuhnuh auag inuvuz vaka'a.
A word is an awesome thing.