Talk:tahash

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Ruakh in topic tahash
Jump to navigation Jump to search

There is an incredible amount of information on this word in the link to the Wikipedia article Tachash which apparently substantiates all the definitions given here. The request for deletion (RFD) and the subsequent move to a request for verification (RFV) and the reasons given for each were as entertaining as a soap opera! Hermitstudy 13:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.

Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.


tahash[edit]

The following is from Wiktionary:requests for deletion Not in the OED. Wikipedia article is for (deprecated template usage) tachash (also not in the OED). SemperBlotto 22:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Move to RFV. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
I think it should remain. I noticed some time ago in the Wikipedia article "Tachash" that "badger" had been replaced by the bracketed (linked) word "Tahash", which contextually made no sense ("the Tahash is excluded...": how could it be excluded when Tahash skin is to be used for the covering?). My own attempt to access the substituted word "Tahash" was unsuccessful. Later, I found several edits and additions which allowed the added "Tahash" to remain ("the Tahash as 'badger' is excluded..."), but still no link to another article. I was already aware that this word was an alternative transliteration of "Tachash" (along with "Takhash"), and expected that someone with the requisite expertise would eventually provide for this lack of an explanation. Some years ago when I first read the word "tahash" in the New American Bible, in the text, and in a footnote to Exodus 25:5, I was able from my other studies to understand somewhat the rendering of "Heth/Cheyth/Khayth" as "h" by the editors (instead of "ch" or "kh"): it is legitimate. I recently reread that text and the footnote re: "tahash" during a study of the Mishkan (the Tabernacle) and, curious, attempted (first time!) to obtain a reliable definition of "Tahash" from Wiktionary less extensive than what was available in the Wikipedia article "Tachash", in the expectation that a brief definition accessible to both the beginning student and the curious reader of the Tanakh/Old Testament translation of the text and the footnote in the NAB existed. It did not. Until a few hours ago. "Tahash" and "Tachash" may not have been submitted to the O.E.D. editors, but both forms of the word and both definitions are found to be fully attested over several decades in material accessible to the ordinary student of world literature and of scripture, and to the ordinary reader, once they know of these sources; but they are not solely found in special studies. The link to the Wikipedia article provides ample evidence of this. It appears that this is the sole reason for the link. The link to the Wikipedia article "Tachash" and the ready link from that article to a solidly based, reasonably terse definition of its alternate form "Tahash" in the Wiktionary has the appearance of solidly based research. The ordinary person can readily find it. I render my opinion that it meets the criteria for inclusion. I find no reason to delete either the Wiktionary entry "tahash" or the Wikipedia article "tachash", precisely because of their utility to the ordinary person reading the Bible, other dictionaries, and other encyclopedias, and the internet, who, seeing the word, will ask what it means. Hermitstudy 07:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
Move to RFV (where I suspect it'll fail).​—msh210 23:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
It appears in the New American Bible’s translation of Exodus 25:5. Is that a well-known work? (That's probably not the only translation that includes it, but it's the first one I found online that does. None of the really famous Christian Bibles — KJV, NIV, etc. — uses it so far as I can tell. I'll check Artscroll when I get home.) —RuakhTALK 22:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
To follow up, my Artscroll uses tachash and my Jerusalem Bible uses tahash (the h being underlined), so neither counts for [[tahash]]. But FWIW, neither one uses italics or gives a footnote or other otherwise suggests that it's anything but a normal English word. In the case of the Jerusalem Bible, that's not so meaningful (it also uses "Moshe" instead of "Moses", "Yisra'el" instead of "Israel", etc.), but Artscroll's use of tachash is more notable IMHO. Those are my only Bibles at home, but I'll be at my parents' house next week, and will comment back if any of their Bibles are relevant (assuming I don't forget). —RuakhTALK 23:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
It is a well-known work within the scope of the whole broad Christian community: probably not as well-known to the Evangelical and Fundamentalist fellowships within the Christian community. (see the Wikipedia articles "New American Bible," and "Tachash: "Other Bible Translations" and the links provided with the titles in that list to articles about them.) Hermitstudy 13:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
A side-by-side statistical sales comparison chart year-by-year 1970-Present should attest the public reputations of the various translations listed in the Wikipedia article tachash. Hermitstudy 11:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
Follow-up response to your query "Is that a well-known work?": See Wikipedia article "English translations of the Bible: Popularity of English Translations"(second paragraph): "Amazon lists the top ten in current sales in the USA (as of 8/17/2009) to be the NAB, NRSV, NIV, KJV, Message, NASB, NLT, RSV, Amplified, and the Orthodox Study Bible." (highlighting of "top ten" and "NAB" mine) Hermitstudy 19:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
Our past discussions of "well-known work" have indicated that that refers not to current bestsellers, but to things like, oh, the works of Shakespeare.​—msh210 19:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Results of a word search of "tahash" yielded the following attestations of use relevant to this debate:


re: observation that "italicized-as-foreign and italicized-as-quoted words don't count as English use": that is not always a valid point. It does not exclude the items cited in attestations of use, which do not use italics.

Encyclopaedia Judaica, Second Edition, Volume 19: SOM--TN, c. 2007, Keter Publishing House Ltd., page 453, has the entry Tahash spelled without italicization and without the "c" (the work does not have an entry for "Tachash"). Tahash consistently appears in many sources as an ordinary English word: the Hebrew term T-H-S / t-h-s / t'h'sh / t'khsh / t-ch-s / t'H's / t'csh appears both in boldface and in italics as Roman letter character transliterations of the Hebrew term. Classical Hebrew has no vowels, English words do. The context of a discussion reveals the intent of italicization of "tahash" as either an emphasis on the term being discussed or on the fact that it was originally derived from a foreign language (transliteration or actual foreign characters often provided at that place in the text) showing that it has come into the English language as a translated term. The titles of English books (e.g. The Collected Works of William Shakespeare) are frequently italicized, per even the guidelines of Wiktionary entries and Wikipedia articles, and they count as English use. The Wikipedia today is a well-known work, and a work in progress. Yet I have met one or two people who have never heard of it. The word "Bible" is italicized in many places, itself derived from a foreign language (biblion, Byblos), solely to emphasize its dignity or importance. The precise meaning of tahash is debated in articles which do not italicize it, but treat it as an ordinary English word. Frequently, English translation editions of the Talmud have technical and Hebraic terms in the text which are not normally italicized or transliterated but are spelled as ordinary English equivalent terms (both dynamic and formal equivalents). The King James Version of the Bible (KJV), also called the Authorized Version (A.V.) has many places with italicized ordinary English words. Consulting at random any number of Wikipedia articles or other encyclopedic and dictionary sources covering any number of other subjects (e.g. animals, plants) will demonstrate the italicization of ordinary English terms. Hermitstudy 05:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

update--last night I reviewed the listing above: attestations of use. (I thought enough time had passed to allow more comments from other contributors to be posted before I continued.) Some of the sites referenced there have since been removed from the search engine (reasons and motivations are never given, it can change day-by-day!) I obtained complete titles of the sources I was able to access and joined them to other information I obtained from my own city's public library. I put them into chronological sequence and entered them as durably archived citations of use 1897-2007. Hermitstudy 16:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
I would also like to point out that most of the names of animals and plants in American and British English use are rooted in another language:
dugong from Malay, for example, camel from Arabic, raccoon from Algonquian, chimpanzee from Tshiluba;
hyacinth from Greek, tulip from Latin, from Turkish, from Persian, indigo from Greek;
unicorn from Latin, griffin from Old French, from Latin, from Greek,
basilisk from Middle English, from Old French, from Latin, from Greek,
sphinx from Middle English, from Latin, from Greek,
chimera from Ancient Greek, etcetera (etc.)
From this and from the citations of use above it should not seem strange or foreign that the English word tahash is a calque from Hebrew. With this I rest my case. Hermitstudy 16:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

RFV failed, entry deleted, for the very unfortunate reason that I can't even tell whether Hermitstudy has demonstrated that this word meets our criteria for inclusion. Hopefully, if it does, someone will come by at some point and demonstrate it in a more intelligible way. —RuakhTALK 14:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)Reply