User talk:Aaron Solomon Adelman

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! JFW | T@lk  22:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style
 * I add my welcome too. IZAK 07:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Orange Catholic Bible
Assuming good faith your recent edit in Orange Catholic Bible may be seen as an attempt to compromise, but as far as I am to judge, it is not enough to match policy. I've just read five of the six novels (in the English original, as I previously only have read the German translations), and I can assure that at least the long list Religions that contributed to the Orange Catholic Bible cannot be found in them. I'm severely skeptical that all the Books of the Orange Catholic Bible can be found, but I'm not 100% certain, as casual reading (at least by me) may have missed some of them.

As it is clearly stated that the Dune Encyclopedia doesn't define Canon, referincing it doesn't buy you anything.

Pjacobi 21:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Maimonides
Hi Aaron, in the edit summary for maimonides you wrote "(It's "Mishneh Torah" ("Second Torah"), not "Mishnah Torah".)", what is the difference between Mishneh and Mishnah or was mishneh just misspelled? A wiki-curious Angelikmeg 03:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Greetings. "Mishnah" and "mishneh" are two different Hebrew words. "Mishnah" means, roughly, "learning" and refers specifically to a set of oral traditions compiled by R. Yehudhah hanNasi'. "Mishneh" means, roughly, "repetition". Someone changed "Mishneh Torah" to "Mishnah Torah", thereby changing the meaning and violating grammar, so I changed it back.

Hi
Hi, welcome, I've reinserted Seven Laws of Noah into the list of religion since it is not only what is required off them, but the seven mitzvah is actually that they have to govern their "shmira" of the previous six, which means their adherence has to be independent of us. So in my view, it is a religion by definition. Please discuss. Again, welcome! frummer 08:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I beg to differ, but the Seven Laws are out of Jewish religious literature. No non-Jewish group, so far as I know, has any tradition of the Seven Laws, other than ones which have been exposed to Judaism and decided they want to practice the Seven Laws without becoming Jewish.  Furthermore, I know of no group which holds by the Seven Laws without believing that Judaism is correct.  I thus hold by my contention that the practice of the Seven Laws is the practice of Judaism by non-Jews, not the practice of a different religion. Having a different set of laws doesn't make for a separate religion.  If it did, we would say Kohanim have a different religion from other Jews, since they have commandments which are not obligatory on other Jews.  Not to mention kings, who also have a few commandments not obligatory on others.  Hiergargo 17:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right, sorry. frummer 02:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Hashem (Tachash)
Your removal of the "implausible" content is intriguing and unexpected. I should be very interested in why you found "The Singular Name/T'Hashem" and the treatment of it implausible. It is no neologism. Many things unfamiliar and personally never-before-considered/never-heard-of-before initially sound strange and utterly implausible: I trust, however, that there is far more to your objection than only this one. I will look for your response here in your talk-page. ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hermitstudy (talk • contribs) 05:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

1) T- as a prefix in Hebrew word formation works upon 3-letter roots, not full-blown nouns. "HashShem" is never used as a root.

2) He’ to Ḥeth is an unprecedented consonantal shift in Hebrew.

3) Dropping of Mem at the end of a word is unprecedented in Hebrew.

4) The entity being talked about is an animal whose skin is waterproof. Huge semantic shifts do occur, but if you want to get from a Divine name to an animal, you had better provide a mechanism to get from one to the other. I hope this answers your question.


 * I thank you for your response. To answer your own implicit question:  the root of the discussion was vocable and oral Hebrew circa 1650 BCE (speculative reconstruction, as "Indo-European" is a reconstructed root-language) not written Hebrew from the time of Ezra.  As languages develop, shifts occur, and divergences in vocalization and spelling emerge to make more specific communication of meaning possible, to avoid misunderstanding.  The Semitic play on words takes advantage of this, sometimes for the sake of humor, more profoundly to make a point.  My experience has shown me that scholarship can overlook sound because of what is seen on the page.  This phenomenon was fore in the discussion.  Hiergargo (talk) 16:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hermitstudy (talk • contribs) 13:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

In other words, you speculate a reconstruction which is totally unprecedented in Hebrew and completely fail to deal with the massive semantic shift. Not to mention you seem to be behind this questionable etymology, which would make you ineligible to put up such material on Wikipedia.

The mechanism I used is situated contextual alliterative connotative association, where THSM is a color or finish of (leather) skins, singular term THS raised to the superlative degree by the dignity of its use for the Mishkan: THSM. This, by its context and situation and vocalization connotes the Name: HSM. The association with HSM is evident and probably deliberate; it does not indicate identity with the Name. The proposed color THSM is reflective of and associative with Heaven: SMyM:  THSM--HSM--SMyM. The color blue, t'helet, is indicated by the ancient sources: LXX, Josephus Ant. 3:102, Vulgate, y. Sabb 2:3, ''Qoh. Rab. 1:9, and Aramaic ssgvn''. HSM is related to THSM in the way that English Heaven is related to the color heavenlyblue (as in "Heavenlyblue" Morning-glory blooms). (And HSM is three-lettered.) Skins that are THSM in color, as the covering of the Mishkan, would appear to the people to be "heavenly-colored," and imminently suitable as a sign of the Dwelling of HSM. Moreover, the phonetic similarity carries the same connotation to the hearer. Your passionate honesty does you credit. Hiergargo (talk) 03:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hermitstudy (talk • contribs) 23:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Please stop pretending you know Hebrew or Aramaic. You're still manipulating sounds in ways not reflected in Hebrew. Not to mention that "HashShem" = "ha-" + "shem" = "the Name" and is not a root, tekheleth is a blue dye produced by snails and not the color blue, and Aramaic sasgawon is a legendary multicolored animal. I'm not going to argue this anymore.

Re: Ma'ale Adumim
This was completely unacceptable. Don't do it again. EvanHarper (talk) 18:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

about the big edit at "Tahash"
Administrative Editor Jezhotwells suggested I drop you a note (see "about large edit removal from Tahash") I am new to Wikipedia and I was frankly astonished that you removed such a huge block of material from an article with no explanation other than that it had been provided by "a linguistic incompetent". I thought editors were to avoid labels like that. If you had a problem with the linguistic parts of the article you could have corrected them and explained the reasons on the discussion page giving published authoritative sources. I had come back to the article after about a month and found a big gap, and had to click on the previous version to look up the linked and cited articles and sources that had been there. I haven't found anything wrong with the material you threw out. Since the text you removed was based almost entirely on the info in those sources, you seem to be taking issue with the sources more than with the contributor(s) who simply summarized the info the sources provide. And since the sources cited have pretty hefty reputations and established authority, that doesn't fill me with confidence in your reason for the edit. With due respect I ask if you have an established reputation as a linguist. Please state exactly what is wrong with the cited and linked sources and give some kind of substantiating references to authoritative sources that support your position and that readers like myself can verify. I can't accept that the material you rejected is defective just because you say so. Michael Paul Heart (talk) 23:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not a linguist, but I do know something about Hebrew, and I do know that some material does not really belong there.

First, there is no reason to include a sizable paragraph on etymology, as it is not an etymology article.

Second, the alleged references to Afroasiatic, Semitic, or in fact, ANY primary roots do not actually point to material on primary roots; they point to material on Hebrew words, material which does not provide any information on more basic roots they may have been derived from.

Thirdly, this article is not the place for a sizable digression on the pronunciation of the Hebrew letter Ḥeth; that would, I presume, be more appropriate in the article on Ḥeth.

Fourth, links allegedly to translations of Arabic words aren't; they pass Latin letters to Google Translate, which naturally fails to recognize the text as Arabic and thus fails to translate it.

Fifth, no source is given indicating that the -im suffix is ever applied as as a general superlative. (Which only makes sense, as it never is.)

Sixth, no source is given which shows that the letter Taw as a prefix or alone means what is claimed. (I am aware of the footnote. It does not lead to sources which mean what is claimed.)  Nor are there any real sources given for the rest of the "Orthographic paranomasia", which anyone else who knows Hebrew will throw a fit over over speculation on wordplay on the nonexistent and ungrammatical word "THSM". And the section "The Aegis of Heaven: T'Hashim and Hashem", which speculates on the symbolism of the taḥash skins, also has no real source.

In short, my position is that the writer of the section in question is unable to substantiate his views and includes material which really is not appropriate in this article. If you need further information on the linguistic incompetence displayed in this section, I do have a copy of Genesius's Hebrew grammar nearby.

Hiergargo (talk) 02:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You confess you're not a linguist. You're not one of Wikipedia's stewards or administrators or one of the consultants.  You refer to only one book, which the article does cite in support.  And you don't explain why you removed the historical facts about the sources that said that תחשים is a color and not an animal and are part of a timeline of change in the meaning of the word from dyed animal skins to a six-colored one-horned desert animal.  Linguistic speculation is one thing, but removing well-known documented historical fact about what people actually said in well-known works from the 3rd century BCE to the 20th century is another.  I guess that settles the issue.  Administrative editor Jezhotwells gave me some good tips about what should be done in such cases as yours appears to be.  Check all the sources.  I do. That's all I need to say.  The matter is closed.  You don't need to respond.  Michael Paul Heart (talk) 13:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * post-note: Gesenius' Hebrew grammar was surpassed by the Hebrew grammar of Thomas Jarrett 1857, the independent Hebrew grammar of Tregelles 1857 (who warned against the rationalism of Gesenius in that publication), Bernhard Stade 1879, the Brown Driver Briggs lexicon pub. 1906, the works of Wolf Leslau d. 2006, William H. C. Propp (scholar with the Anchor Bible Series cited in Wiki article "Tahash") and J. J. M. Roberts (living). Michael Paul Heart (talk) 03:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Opportunity for collaboration
Dear Aaron Solomon,

I noticed you because of your contributions to Maimonides from a while ago. It seems that you have the ability to contribute to Messiah in Judaism because you have some background and language skills! Please email me for more effective means of collaboration.

Blessings,

Yaakov W. Yaakov Wa. (talk) 04:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

p.s. A Kosher and Happy Pesach!

• Thanks for the interest, but I am very busy these days and don’t really have the time to do the research such a project would entail. Sorry.