I was just struck by the usage of the Latin plenus "full, complete" in many languages (English plenty, plenary/ French plein/ Russian полный polniye ) and was thinking if it had any connection to the hebrew aramaic usage for the generic - פלוני...
I also looked up alimony in Latin and it apparently means sustenance, support.
So that put together פלוני אלמוני would mean "full support".. quite an odd connotation given the context in מגילת רות ... I think R' Matis has talked about that in his shiurim on רות.. will have to look into that further...
p.s. Note the אותיות בומ"ף connection of ploni with the word "baloney" and the phrase "full of baloney". Is that why it's called baloney? because it's filled up with things? Maybe then we can understand פלוני אלמוני i.e. he's "full of it".
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I talked about almoni here:
http://www.balashon.com/2009/05/aluma.html
Interesting! Thx for that. I never thought about the relationship to all those other terms.
Funny because the other day I was thinking about you :-). I think I came upon the difference in approach we have which is clear in the different ways we approached אלמוני, but before that let me ask you a question: How do you understand R' Akiva's learning the 4 batim in tefillin from לטטפת because שכן בכרכי הים קורים וכו ? What is his logic? Why would the Torah write in a language of some quaint islands that have little jewish population?
I think in the answer to this question lays a large difference between approaches between you and I... I look forward to hear your thoughts.
I discussed that here:
http://www.balashon.com/2007/01/totafot.html
I don't know if he's saying the Torah wrote in that language, but that you can understand the words of the Torah by comparing it to that language (which is therefore related to Hebrew.)
I see. Very interesting. Certainly much more thorough and beyond the commentaries that I knew on the word.
Now I'll tell you my thinking absent all that :-)
Languages evolve from a primal fundamental consciousness or origin point. If we find a remote island somewhere where the letters "tat" came to mean "two" then that de facto must mean that the human existential conscious saw it fitting and expressive of reality to encapsulate the concept of "two" in the sound of "tat".
In other words, if you come with the presupposition that Torah is NOT a book of jewish teachings but rather as a blueprint of fundamental reality then EVERYTHING is fair game. Every naturally occuring phenomenon of reality is by definition an expression of Existence and therefore MUST also have some connection (large or small) in the Torah. Granted we can't always understand how everything fits together but that doesn't take away from our assumption that it's all unified as one expression of Primal Existence. That is my understanding of שמע ישראל יהוה אלהינו יהוה אחד
Now here's the crux of the point I feel lies between myself versus you-and-the-rest of the scholars/etymologists/sources that you've amply provided:
Because I'm seeing language as emerging from a deeper imbedded human consciousness I'm not dependent or hooked on causal explanations of languages evolving or developing from one another. That's not to say that there isn't a rational historical cause/effect explanations of how languages evolved but it's to say that to a certain degree it's irrelevant because if not having hailed from x it would have ultimately hailed from y. Such is the nature of existential Truths, they ultimately find a way to manifest themselves through chaotic processes.
[I always like the stock market as an example. A company has an intrinsic cash value of say $3. pertubations occur and it's being sold in the market way below it's true value, say $1. I can tell you with certainty that ultimately it must return to $3 even though I can't tell you which day of the market or how it will happen. The fundamentals dictate the final result even though they don't dictate the chaotic causal chain of events that will lead to that final result...]
I'm not suggesting that english people came to the phrase "full of baloney" because they "borrowed it" from the hebrew פלוני. I don't think the guy who made up baloney ever heard of the hebrew פלוני! I'm suggesting that the word baloney ultimately was the word that "felt right" to describe a particular sentiment (i.e. the generic, the fake, overblown) because deep down, universally, existentially that construct of letters "jives" with our inner compass of reality and it's sounds.
Similar to the universal human expressions of smiling to show happiness or raising the eyebrows to show puzzlement... it goes beyond causal explanations of "where did he learn that from?"
Way to lengthy, I know. and probably seen as illogical or mystical by most I guess. anyway, that's what was rattling in my head the other day when I was thinking about you :-) sorry for going overboard.
Silly me I never ended up asking you:
According to how you explained it, from where did R' Akiva make the assumption that the language in the כרכי הים was related to Hebrew?
Post a Comment