Talk:K-B-D

Separating by language?

Is this really necessary? I noticed you did it at Q-D-S as well. Part of the beauty of these roots is that they are common to all the languages and generally share common (or at least related) meanings as well. I'd really prefer to organize the page by grammar structure and expositions on a concept related to the root meaning in all the languages.

Also, the language chart just for Hebrew again ... Are we going to do it for all the languages? Won't it be redundant? Tiamut^talk 01:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

That comes at the expense of not being able to look at each langague in depth independently. For instance, you completely seperated the information on the Hebrew bible from the Hebrew language, and that completly framents understanding the structure of the Hebrew langague because you can not do one without the other. Epson291 (talk) 02:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's another example. Take the word for honour in Hebrew which comes from this root. It exists in both noun and verb from but that's not because of its root, it's because they're part of the same langague. That would be very difficult to express if it was seperated by simply grammar structure. Epson291 (talk) 02:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

That's why I suggested discussing things by concept as well. That way, one could take the concept of "honour" and discuss its grammatical use in the various languages, its evolution over time, similarities, dissimilarities, etc.

If your focus is solely on the root as applied in Hebrew, you might want to consider writing an article devoted to that subject which links back here, and for which we have a summary section here. Alternatively, you might want to create another article on Hebrew roots that derive from Semitic roots, which links back here.

Do not get me wrong. Your work here and at Q-D-S have enriched the articles, but it would be nice if your contributions could reflect that Hebrew is not the only Semitic language in the world. I understand that you are more comfortable writing about Hebrew than the others due to your fluency, but the others could use some attention too, and your familiarity with the Hebrew roots should allow you to deal with them as well. Many of the languages don't have people who speak them anymore, and the speakers of their descendant languages would do well to use what knowledge they have to document that history.Tiamut^talk 02:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Tiamut, please assume good faith as well. I'm not trying to make it look like "Hebrew is the only Semitic language in the world," I was using Hebrew as an example because it is what I'm most familar with. I understand my edits have made it a bit lopsided for Hebrew, but all that means is the other languages should have their own content increased. I worked on improving the Hebrew content for the 22 Phoenician letters, and other editors exclusively improved its Arabic, Syriac, or orgins content. I would be happy to contibute to the other languages Tiamut if I had a greater fluency/understanding in them. Epson291 (talk) 02:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear Epson291. I did not mean to imply that your motivations were to do that, but rather that that was their effect. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

You do not need to be fluent in other Semitic languages to write about them. I'm not. I look up the roots and read about them and then write about them to the best of my ability based on the English-language sources. I understand that people have their editing interests and foci and that if you're simply not interested in writing outside of your area of knowledge (or feel uncomfortable doing so), you are, of course, free not to. I'm just saying it would be nice, since there is hardly anyone who is fluent in Ugaritic or Akkadian. However, Semitic speakers like you and me have a one-up on the non-Semites since we can understand the structures and phonetics more readily. Anyway, whatever you want to do.

As to the rest of the discussion, we will have to take it up tomorrow. My brain is absolutely fried. So Salamat Epson (from the root S-L-M. ; Tiamut^talk 03:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Epson. All of these pages, on this model, are becoming Hebrew language lessons, and not explorations of roots over all-Semitic languages. You have agreed this leads to overweighting (WP:Undue), but suggest the same be done with other languages. There are two ways to look at this, cut back, or follow the overload. One designs a page by precedents, implicitly. I am imagining a page with 10 paradigms of this kind one after another, for each triconsonantal root. Do you intend, on all pages, involving triconsonantal roots to supploy the Hebrew template and occupy half of the page space? It does look, irrespective of intentions (love of the Hebrew language) as though Hebrew is to be everywhere showcased as the key language of a very large and complex group. This is supposed to be a comparative perspective, and is under threat of becoming a Hebrew language page with some minor fringes from other semitic languages.If one wants to retain this kind of information, it should be reformatted to give a comparative presentation of the one paradigm, as refracted through several languages. I.e. see this, which I now see appears to be taken from the wiki page on Triliterals.Nishidani (talk) 14:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Only that several languages would be in the line. That is ugly, and basically useless. But it is the natural consequence of endeavours to make every triconsonantal page highlight the Hebrew paradigm in each case. Think about it.Nishidani (talk) 12:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Hebrew vocalization need explanation

We need to explain why the root kbd is vocalized as kvd in Hebrew and whether that is a function of Modern Hebrew, or has always been the case. In the texts I added on older Hebrew usage, no mention was ever made of a "v" vocalization. If Epson knows when this transition occurred and could add it to the article, that would be great. Because it's somwhat confusing fo the lay reader who is unaware of the "b"/"v" interchange in modern Hebrew. Tiamut^talk 15:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not from Modern Hebrew, the b/v stems all the way from Biblical Hebrew (b, v are allophonic) though the written distiction only occured with the introduction of dagesh/niqqud, while coming later, it based in on the ancient pronounciations. You're soucres are probably written with ḇ, and not b, something which is used in those type of sources to indicate simply the letter bet, regardless of either b/v. When quoting the bible, I would use the niqqud (diacritics/harakat) to do transliterations. Epson291 (talk) 02:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Kbd as a noun means liver in all the Semitic languages

Instead of discussing this fact every time in a separate section devoted to each language, I think we should have a small comparative chart for this in the origins section. (Perhaps we can simply add a row to the column in that section for the noun.) There is a chart here with all the Latinized transliterations for each Semitic language. I think this would be a good addition to the article since it will show the similarity across the board and the concept of the "liver" as the seat of emotions/passions forms the root idea behind the variations in meaning for kbd derivations that followed. Thoughts? Tiamut^talk 16:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

If we did it in a comparison table I'd include not only liver, but heavy, and honour as well, which are found according to my research to be in Akkadian, and Ugarit as well. How about Arabic, is it just liver? Epson291 (talk)

According to my research, the "heavieness" or "physical weight" isn't found in Arabic, only the negative meaning to opress (which is already in the article). Epson291 (talk) 23:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

English	Akk.	Amor.	Ug.	Phoen./Pun.	Aram.	Syr.	Hebrew	Arabic	Eth.	Amhar.	OSA	Tigr.	Te.	Ch.
"be heavy" or "be important"	kabatu	kbd	kbd	kbd	yqr	?	?	kabada	kabda	kabbada	kbd	kabda	kbd	?
liver	kabitt	?	kbd	?	kabd	kabada	kaved	kabid/kibd	?	?	?	?	kabdat	?
honour	?	kbd	kbd	kbd	?	?	kavod	?	?	?	?	?	kbt	axab
sweep, cleanse	N	N	N	N	kbd	N	kibud	N	N	N	N	N	N	N

'Sources [1]

[2] [3] Epson291 (talk) 01:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm having troubles reading the soucres, have a look at the 3 of them, if you like what I've done, fill the rest in Epson291 (talk) 01:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

That is a pretty impressive piece of work Epson. Well done.Nishidani (talk) 10:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll do what I can to fill things in soon, but I think what you've done with this table is great and would like to add it to the article ASAP. IT's the kind of comparative chart I've been dreaming of. Well done. Tiamut^talk 11:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Declaration of intent

I am actually quite interested in these root topics, esp. with adding a bit of content towards Hebrew, where possible as I am a native speaker. I'd be interested in making a bit of contribution, but I'll certainly stay away from suggesting any changes to content by an editor who is concerned that s/he's being harassed. I have no such intentions and my only interest is promoting the encyclopedia. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 05:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Notes

• A matter of great importance is noted as "In'yan Kvad Mishkal" (lit. matter of heavy weight).
• The root is also used to describe a person's possessions/baggage with the word Kvodah (Hebrew: כבודה)

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 05:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC) more 05:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Concenrs

• The following line seems like an error both in transliteration (should be Koved) and it is used in modern day Hebrew.
  • "This usage, found in the bibical Hebrew word kavad (Hebrew: כָּבַד) is not used in Modern Hebrew."
• It is customary to not use the word for the name of God as if he/it were referred to as a person and as such, there is room to change the following line to avoid the non-necessary choice of words which is offensive.
  • "Yahweh's glory (kabhodh: Septuagint dóxa) was visible fire"

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 05:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

No need to place "Yahweh" here, as this is an article about the triliteral root, and it is of no consequence whether the more offensive "Yahweh" is used as opposed to the more generic and less offensive "God".

Furthermore, the "Kavad" is not a mistake; it is not "Koved" as that is the present tense, but rather "Kavad" which is the past tense of the same word. The former is not found in the bible, but the latter is (I believe the context is God's heardening of Pharaoh's heart and the hardening of the enslavement in Egypt, but I do not remember for certain).

Neither sense is used in modern hebrew AFAIK; the only sense I am aware of is "Kaved" which is an adjective and has entirely differently vowelization.

Mordynu (talk) 05:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)