|
View the H-Judaic Discussion Logs by month
View the Prior Message in H-Judaic's November 2009 logs by: [date] [author] [thread] View the Next Message in H-Judaic's November 2009 logs by: [date] [author] [thread] Visit the H-Judaic home page.
Sent: Fri 11/20/2009 10:17 AM Subject: Inbal or Inbol Corrected posting: The word inbal/inbol appears in both forms in the Mishnah, and thus, both are acceptable forms. Even Shoshan thought that one is modern use while the other is old use, but there is not support for this distinction. Even Shoshan certainly had the use of Milon Ivri of Yehudah Gur (1947) which gives the citations Inbal (Parah 12:8); Inbol (Kelim 14:4) Gur gave both versions as early as his first dictionary 1929 (under his old name Yehudah Grasovsky, coauthored with David Yelin). Baruch Krupnick, Milon Ivri Chadash, Tel Aviv, 1936 has both forms. But Even Shoshan is not alone in his dismissal of the form Inbol as an old form. Meir Medan in his dictionary MeAlepf ad Tav, Tel Aviv, 1969 has only Inbal. Well, do we have both forms? In my view the issue here is how should one point the word? One could have the letter bet with a kamatz or with a holam. In fact when this word appears in the Otzar Leshon HaMishnah of Chayim Yehoshua Kasovsky (Jerusalem, 1959) he gives both forms, but indicates that the word comes from Greek embolus and Latin embolon to Hebrew. If that is the case, then the form Inbol appears more authentic. Kohut in Aruch Ha-Shalem, vol. iv, p. 222 and n.7 suggests also that inbol is the correct form In conclusion, modern Hebrew uses inbal, but the original use was probably inbol following the Greek and Latin. Gilad J. Gevaryahu
 Humanities & Social Sciences Online 
|