E 0161          (TO)  CHAR

The verb " to char " is of uncertain , but Indo European origin

H 0935              ף ר ש , ב ר ש

Concept of root : incomplete burning

Hebrew word

pronunciation

English meanings

ב ר ש ;

 ף ר ש

sharav ;

 saraph

torrid heat, burning;

to burn

Related English words

to char

Comparison between European words and Hebrew

Languages

Words

Pronunciation

English meanings

Similarity in roots

Hebrew

ב ר ש ;

ף ר ש

sharav ;

saraph

torrid heat , burning ;

to burn

sh . r . v ;

s . r . ph

Russian

жар

zjar

heat, live coal

zj . r

English

to char ;

to scorch

to char ;

to scorch

tsh . r  ;

sc . r tsh <

sc . r c

Dutch

schroeien ;

schroken

sghruyen ;

sghroken

to char, scorch

sch r . ;

sch r . k

 

 

Proto.Semitic SARAP(H) < Proto-Semitic *SHARÀ --- *SKRŌ- K- Proto-Germanic < SHĂR- Indo-European

Proto-Semitic SHARAB/V < Proto-Semitic *SHARÀ --- *SKRŌ- K- Proto-Germanic < SHĂR- Indo-European

 

 

We present two different Hebrew roots, that show us a couple of things about consonant-change and -development . With the meanings very near, in the range of scorching and burning, both roots easily are of common origin. But one begins with S, the other with SH. Apparently one may convert into the other. We know from European languages and dialects, how often an S is pronounced SH, in any position in a word. This does not mean that all S’es are the same as all SH’S, and for that TS’s, of course not. But many times they will be of one common origin.

 

The second observation is that one of the two roots has a final B/V and the other a final P(H). We should perhaps say originally a final B and a final P. Often these differences represent a real distinction between meanings, but not always. One would like to have more certainty in etymology, but this is not easily given. In Hebrew a final B becomes a V, and a final P becomes an PH, or an F if we want. This phenomenon is very old, as is demonstrated by comparisons between Indo European languages and Hebrew in this list, when we find already a spelling with V or F when Hebrew still writes B or P.

 

In our specific case, with "sharab" and "sarap(h)", the pronunciation of the final consonants was already "softened", had lost its explosiveness, when people began writing alphabetically, in the days of the Patriarchs and specifically in Kanaan/Israel. For the scholars who codified words, it may have been difficult to always distinguish clearly between the pronunciation of a final F and a final V. One may just recall the transcription of Russian words, where we find precisely this kind of different versions of final syllables : " Romanov", "Romanow", "Romanof". This explains that also one and the same Hebrew root could end up being spelled with a final V (written B ) or a final F (written P ).

 

This does not alter the fact that those men who began writing alphabetically, were extremely good linguists and scholars. They had well understood the reality of Hebrew (and Canaanite or Phoenician ) roots and usually they consciously decided to use the same letter ( like B ), independently of the pronunciation ( like B or V ) , if belonging to the same root they had discerned.

 

Note:
  • Proto-Semitic . The root "S R P" of this entry is there in Aramaic "ש ר ף , seraph = he burned". Ugaritic used "SH R P" with the same meaning. Akkadian "sharāpu = to burn". This root was probably used in Proto-Semitic with initial "SH-" : "*ש ר ף , SH R P". The other abovementioned root, "SH R B" is seen in Aramaic and Syriac "ש ר ב, sherav = to be parched, glow". Arabic uses an initial " S " in "sarāb = fata morgana, mirage", a word presumably related to the root regarding scorching heat. Also this root may have been present in Proto-Semitic: "*ש ר ב, SH R B. "

     

    The two just mentioned roots have in common the two consonant combination "SH . R .", that must have carried a message of burning, scorching and heat. This presumably was still used in Proto-Semitic : "*ש ר ה, SH R + accentuated vowel".

     

    A development of the pronunciation of the third consonants of both roots, from " P " into " PH = F " and from " BV " into " V " may have been underway in Proto-Semitic and we allow for this in the comparison.

 

Note:
  • English "to char" gives some problem. It is said to have been derived from the noun "charcoal", but that is no answer, because "charcoal" is a combination, composition of two : "char" and "coal". One supposition, presented with some hesitation or doubt, is the following :

     

    " Charcoal" < Middle English " charcole " < French "charbon = charcoal " < Latin "carbo , gen carbonis = coal, + ( once more ) coal . Old English already had "col" for "coal". Developments may be quite illogical, as this one would be. And French had a habit of making CH out of a Latin C, like in "chaud < calidus" and "cheval < caballus ". But this would mean that the English would have compressed immediately the composition they invented : From "charboncoal" into "charcoal". This looks like a very modern, twentieth-century way of word-building practised in 1200 e.v. or thereabouts.

     

    We should take into consideration that the Latin word "carbo, gen. carbonis " meant already and precisely "charcoal". And though it has no clear etymology at all, "carbo" should be in origin related with the Indo European basic root "*ker", that said " to burn ".

 

Note:
  • English, Russian and Dutch. We prefer to look into a possible different origin, that we find in the combination of English "char", Dutch "schroei = char" and Russian "zjar = live coal". Meanwhile we remark that the original meaning of "coal" or "cole" was that of "live cole, fire, glowth ". This has developed into the "raw material for burning". Carbon in German and Dutch was called "Steinkohle, steenkool" litterally "stone-coal" as distinguished from "cole" out of wood.

     

    English "to scorch" doubtlessly is related to Dutch "schroeien" and "schroken" with identical meaning. The initial SC and SCH easily correspond and the chosen vowel is near-identical. But then English has changed some by the metathesis between the R and the vowel-spot, a very common occurrance. The final guttural we find added in English "scorch" and in Dutch "schroken", but in English it has changed pronunciation into TSH. In Dutch the apparently newer form "schroken" has disappeared from daily speech and the older form "schroeien" is still actual living language.

 

Note:
  • Proto-Germanic. The geographical territory of Middle English "scorchen = to scorch", of Germanic origin, comprehends Lower Germany and the Low Lands. It is possible that Proto-Germanic had "*SK R Ō K-", out of an earlier "*SK R Ō-". The use of the vowel " O " may be a Germanic development.

 

Note:
  • Indo-European. Russian "zjar" and English "char" and the just mentioned original Proto-Germanic form do not have a third consonant and they give an indication for a hypothesis for Indo-European : "*SH Ă R-".

 

 

 

 
"...the town, to which was given the name Babel, because it was there that the Lord confused the language of all the world on the face of which He dispersed them. GENESIS 11,9"
 
Created: Tuesday 6 November 2007 at 22.30.54 Updated: 07/02/2013 at 12.48.18