Talk:לילית

Folk-etymology?

No-one has provided a reason why the derivation from "night" should not be genuine. It seems that the Semitic root l-l- (masculine noun meaning "night") is joined to the feminine suffix -t, thus meaning "lady of the night". This can hold true even for the Akkadian word. If this is not so, please specify why not, and come up with a better explanation. 24.108.18.81 04:47, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Because it may be not true in the first place to assume any connection to nocturnal occurrences. Fay Freak (talk) 05:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Um...why not? 24.108.18.81 15:56, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Because as I said in the etymology, the related meanings may have arisen in secondary connection to that Semitic root, so not actually derive from it. The earliest occurrences (Isaiah 34:14, maybe also the Talmud occurrence) do not give enough context to make it certain that it was a nocturnal demon. Rare words were misinterpreted more often than correctly interpreted, the first hint being superficial etymologies. Thus אֲבִיּוֹנָה (“caperberry”) could mean the “orgasm” we wish you at night. Fay Freak (talk) 18:21, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Wouldn't the Akkadian occurrences actually be earlier than the instances in Hebrew, given that the Hebrew term is a loan word form Akkadian in the first place? So, they have a good point when they say "It seems that the Semitic root l-l- (masculine noun meaning "night") is joined to the feminine suffix -t, thus meaning "lady of the night". This can hold true even for the Akkadian word." Emphasis on that last sentence there: "this can hold true even for the Akkadian word". Obviously the technical side of the explanation doesn't hold perfectly since Akkadian is a different language from Hebrew, but I understand what they mean: the principle is the same, maybe not the execution but the principle is the same, for an unsaid technical reason that they should've provided. But it seems as if they know what they are talking about, there are not many that know Akkadian anyhow, so the fact that they could speak on it at all says a lot. They probably just didn't explain their point properly, but it doesn't necessarily mean that they are wrong. There's no proof that they are incorrect. If they can give a technical explanation like that, they must know where they are coming from, and they must more likely than not actually be correct. GattoNera (talk) 14:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

compare lilu, lilin - -sche (discuss) 13:13, 5 November 2023 (UTC)