The Holy Tongue and Indo-european languages

Much of the charm, beauty and impact of the Hebrew language, its power to convey meaning and impart emotion and its ability to tersely represents a multitude of shades and gradations of meaning derives out of its unique structure, so unlike that of the European languages with which we are most familiar[1]. A great deal of Chazal’s heuristic (system of interpretations) relates directly to specific features of the Holy Tongue. It is, therefore, vital to address some of these features of the Holy Tongue before we can concern ourselves with the broader issues of interpretation and exegesis.

One of the basic problems that every language has to solve as it attempts to extend its reach beyond the basic vocabulary is how to form new words to name new things or to express previously unknown concepts. Such new words must be able to accurately describe the thing, action or event for which they will be used and therefore, be sufficiently different from the existing words to not be confused with them; at the same time, without a defined, predictable and reproducible method of new word formation, a language will quickly find itself burdened with tens of thousands of new terms that even a native speaker cannot figure out. An average speaker of the language must be able to at least make some kind of guess about a new word from its structure, sound or construction. Imagine for a moment a language that forms every new word through borrowing from completely unrelated languages. These new words will not only sound foreign but look and seem so unfamiliar that their meaning will be impossible to fathom. If you do not know the meaning of such a word, you will find no clues in its sound, similarity to a word that you already recognize or a shared grammatical structure to deduce its meaning. There is however an advantage to this method of new word formation for the new word is unlikely to be confused with any word that already exists. When words are formed by extension of pre-existent forms they carry some of the associations of their origin into their new life. This can be confusing. In other words, there is a balance between the ease of understanding and precision/ accuracy. Languages that form de-novo words are particularly suited for scientific and other uses, where precision and accuracy are all important, for no word would share much meaning or significance with any other word.  It is quite difficult, however, to express multiple meanings, to nuance significantly or to easily write poetry in such languages. The European languages are an example of this group.

Another way to form new words is to possess a set of rules that allow stretching, re-vocalizing or augmenting an already existing word. An advantage of this method is that you can usually recognize the old root of the new word and thus be guided to its approximate meaning. There is, however, also a disadvantage for it allows a certain degree of imprecision. The reason for that is that new words will always possess some of the meaning and nuance of the original root. On the other hand, if you want words to carry multiple associations and nuances, it is precisely what you would favor. This description typifies the Holy Tongue. Every new word derives its meaning primarily out of its root and secondarily from every other word of the same root, since it relies on all of them for clues for meaning. You might say that every word oscillates with possibilities and is pregnant with meanings. Which of the associations predominates is determined by the local and overall context. In different situation, the same word might mean distinct, albeit related, things. In other situations, several related meanings exist contemporaneously, and it may be difficult to determine precisely which shade of meaning or conceptualization is primary. A tongue that uses this system will have little use for vocalization, for the meaning can quite satisfactorily be carried solely by the consonants that make up its roots. It is they that constitute the predictable part of the word - what we call mishkal. 

Take for example the English word peel. One cannot possible dispense with syllables for “pl” could be read as peel, pail, pool, pale, pol, pole, etc. These are not related items that draw from the same root. There is nothing in these words that allows you to figure out" their meaning, if you do not already know what they signify. Syllables are co-equal with consonants in such languages. Not so the Holy Tongue.

One can see the basic difference in language structure by exploring what we do when we encounter a new word. In English, we instinctively reach for the dictionary or search for cognates in Romance or Germanic languages. In Hebrew we automatically try to isolate a root to figure out he word’s meaning.

Let us consider a word that so perplexes novice students of Hebrew – the root “KDSH”. Out of this root many words arise but all of them carry the basic meaning of separateness or dedication. The basic root is preserved but vowels differ.We have Kodesh (holy), mikdash (sanctified place or object), Kedusha (holiness), kodoshim (sacrifices), kadesh (dedicated to prostitution), kiddush (a prayer to sanctify the Shabbat) and others. One who does not know one of these words but meets it in a sentence, will immediately recognize the pattern significance of the word and then will rely on the context to narrow its significance farther in a particular circumstance. It is important to realize that thus context is provided not only by the words that immediately surround it but also by all other usages of the root. One can see Hebrew words as constituting concentric circles of meaning, such as might occur when one drops a pebble into a pool. All of these meanings are present, although we might choose to disregards some of them for use in a particular context. What I am trying to convey is that the meaning of a specific word is not specific and unique but fluid and shared among all the words of the same root. In fact, every word partakes of the meanings of all other words of the same root and in modifies all of them in return; they depend on it as much as it depends on them.

One would be hard pressed to write a chemistry textbook in ancient Hebrew but it makes for truly great mystical poetry. One can say and pack a great deal of diverse meaning into a few words of the Holy Tongue. In this fashion, the most prominent feature of Rabbinic interpretation, multi-vocality, is incipient in the very structure of its language.

(1] See R. S.R. Hirsch commentary to Genesis 11 for an elaboration of this point.

Comments

[S.]

Isn't this post actually about Semitic languages, as opposed to Hebrew specifically? I'm unaware of how this post could not have been written about Arabic or any other language from the Semitic group.