|
E 0626 OBSCURE
The word " obscure " is, via
Old French, of Latin origin .
H 0895 ר ח ש
Concept of root : dark
|
Hebrew word
|
pronunciation
|
English meanings
|
|
ר ח ש
|
shaghar ;
shaghor
|
to be
dark, black;
dark,
black
|
|
|
|
Related English words
|
obscure,
from Latin
|
|
|
Comparison between European words and
Hebrew
|
Languages
|
Words
|
Pronunciation
|
English meanings
|
Similarity in roots
|
|
Hebrew
|
ר ח ש
|
shaghar
;
-
-
shaghor
|
to become dark, black ;
dark,black
|
sh . gh . r
|
|
Greek
|
σκιερος
|
skieros
|
dark ; making shadow
|
sk . r
|
|
Latin
|
obscurus;
obscurare
|
obscurus;
obscurare
|
dark ;
to make dark
|
sc . r
|
Proto-Semitic *SHAGHAR , *SHAGHOR --- *SKŪR- Indo-European
The word "obscure" is well enough known in English. It comes from Latin and its first part was the prefix "ob-", that can mean various things, such as "towards " , "in front of " , " because of ", "in favour of". The second part, "scurus", is not known as an independent word, but certainly has existed. Seen the meaning of "obscurus" in which "ob" may well have a confirming function, we dare to suppose that "scurus" was related in meaning and root to our Greek and Hebrew words. Thus it stood for "dark" or "darkness".
Note:
- Hebrew with " SH GH R " as root shows a real peculiar phenomenon. We have placed this group of three consonants in two entries, as it is quite possible that there were originally two roots with different letters Shin, that did not have the same pronunciation. The existence of two Shin’s in older language seems certain. But the most probable explanation is that this root originally indicated " changing , both from dark into light and from light into dark ". See the notes in E 0774 (Hebrew 0896)
Note:
- Proto-Semitic already used this same root found in Hebrew "*ש ח ר , SH GH R".
It is seen in Aramaic and Syriac "ש ח ר , sheghar = became dark, black." Then , interestingly, "coal" is in Syriac "ש ו ח ר א, shughrą" and in Akkadian "shūru", without the "GH" in the root, but a lot nearer to the Latin word "scurus". In our comparison we add a version with the vowels " A + O", that probably was used already in Proto-Semitic.
Note:
- Greek. One may cast some doubt on the similarity of this Greek word with Hebrew, saying that it has been derived from "σκια , skia = shadow ". In that case the R would not be part of the original root. But "skia" talks only about "shadow", not "darkness", and a specific verb for "to make shadow" was available in "σκιαζω , skiazo".
Note:
- Latin "*scurus" is supposed to come from an Indo European root "*scu = to cover" or perhaps another one, "*skot = dark". This second root should have given also English "shade" and "shadow" and has certainly existed. Also Greek "σκοτος, skotos = dark" comes from this root.
Also the first one has existed, and it was used to express " to cover" f.e. in Old Indian skunāti" . Greek "skia" may have come from it and then we are still at the concept of shadow. True, a shadow is caused by something interposed, but that does not imply covering as such. Anyhow, these suppositions do not explain the R . It seems clear that the root with an R may have been normally developed from a briefer one, but then has acquired its own right of existence. It is uncertain if Old High German "skur ; scura; sciura = shed, covered place, " and idem Dutch "schuur = shed" are related, as is thought. Their function is not that of being dark, but of to "to protect", near "to cover"
Note:
- Indo-European. The problem is that with the closing consonant " R ", "SK U R-" we find: 1a. Hebrew "shaghor", naturally with two syllables for three consonants as usual and 1b. Latin "(ob)scurus", meaning "dark". But also 2. Old High German "skur" e.o. that have the concept of "to cover, protect". And without " R " there is Anglo-Saxon "scua = Darkness, shadow, protection", thus covering both concepts.
Consequently it is plausible that both "darkness" and "covering, protection" were already served (early) in Indo-European by "*S K Ū-". Subsequently developments by adding other consonants have led to "*S K Ū R-" and "S K Ū/Ō-T", both without fully consequent diversification of meanings.
The striking point is that the closing consonant " R " was also present in Semitic. This phenomenon, that shows Semitic corresponding with a part only of Indo-European, is rather frequent. An explanation in this specific case might also be that in Indo-European in some groups or sectors the final " R " was lost and/or substituted/followed by other consonants, a dental as shown, a "G" as in Nordic "skugga, skugge = shadow", or also a labial like the "M" in Old Norse "scuma = darkness, twilight", that corresponds with a Dutch word that has the " R ".
This word is "schemeren = to be between dark and light". This represents two very interesting phenomena. The first basic one regards the message, that may cover two for our way of thinkings opposite concepts, like "to come, to go", and in this instance "to be(come) light" as well as "to be(come) dark". The second phenomenon is demonstrated by Old English, where one sees, again without that "R" found in Dutch, the word "scima= light, twilight, gloom". And Middle Dutch does the trick both with and without the " R ": "schemen, schemeren = bring darkness, bring light". It must be observed, that the " R " in the version "schemeren" may be an infix that makes the verb iterative of intensive, which would change the picture.
Armenian khavar = dark" is an interesting development out of "*KUR", of which the "U" became pronounced as a consonant, specifically "V" and then required two vowels " A " for a practical and pleasant pronunciation of the complete word. An or the initial "S" may have gone lost in the process .
Celtic has used dentals as extra consonants: Old Irish "scáth = shadow" and Breton "skeud = darkness".
|
|
|
| Created: Tuesday 6 November 2007 at 22.30.54 Updated: Thursday 7 February 2013 at 16.06.29 |
|