All joking aside, let's continue our journey around STavRos, the STaKe stuck in the ground, STaNDing STRaiGhT, STiLL, and oFFiCial. We find « ShaTa » in the Latin STiRPS, the STuMP, the RooT. Remember ShoReSh in Hebrew, the root, the stump I mentioned a year ago. STiRPS on one side, ShoReSh on the other.

From STiRPS, for example, comes the verb to eXTiRPate; to remove a stake from the ground. Extirpate in Hebrew is NaTaSh... Indeed 🙂 But don't just STaND there looking powerless, let's continue with STiPeS, the trunk, stuck in the ground indeed, and STiPuLa, the STeM, from which also comes a term well known to JuRiSTs, STiPuLor, meaning to STiPuLate, to make a formal agreement.

The STiCk in Egyptian is TISuW, but also comes up in English with the STaFF (and STiFF, like a WooDen stick), the stump and the STuB: a protruding end on which you STuMBLe when you're STuBBoRN (as a Pharisian). By the way, a stick (BâToN in French) can be used to BeaT up people (BaSTonner), especially STuPiD people - you know who I mean. Just as a stick is used to STRiKe, and a PiSToN is used to PeSTLe, from the Latin PiSTo. The Hebrew word for pestle is KeTeSh.

And this detour via the stick and the pestle brings me back to the semantic field of what is hard with the Greek KaSToN, wood, from which derives the hard CheSTNuT wood, and the BeaVer, the CaSToR in French, who, as everyone knows, « eats » wood. « Ka Sa Ta » is found in the verb « to CaST », which means both to throw and - very different - to mold something that will harden. « Ka Sa Ta » is also found in CaSTle (ChâTeau in French), from the Latin CaSTellum - ShaTo in Hebrew 🙂 Nah, that's just for fun, it’s the Trickster in me ! But you've got to admit, it would have been cool: The HaRD and WaRDeD « ChâTeau / ShaTo » 🙂

But let's get back to the STaKe, the STiCk STuCk in the ground. When you PuLL it out or eXTiRPate it, what's left? A HoLe. And after pulling the stick out and sticking it back in several times, what do you need to do to keep it STRaiGhT? You SToMP the SoiL around the hole. You STuFF the hole and SToPPer it.

What do you mean, you don't know the words « stopper », « eSTouPer » in French ? For the love of God, what's school for these days? « Estouper » is an Old French verb meaning to stuff a hole with oaKum (éTouPe), for example, which gave éTouFFer (to ChoKe) - and which English has retained with the verb « to ShuT » and more importantly with the verb « to SToP » and the stuff. Stuff is the oakum used to stopper, or stop, a LeaK, but also to WeDGe the stick in its hole: to stick the stick.

This wedging meaning appears in the Greek STuFô (to contract), in STéNoô (narrow), and in the Latin STRiNGo, which gave STRiCTus, and STRaNGuLo, to SQueeZe (which we've already come across in connection with the verb to WRinG out), and from which derives the well-known STReSS. As my father says, « only good things come out of stress ! » 😳.

And finally, what chokes (BouCher in French) ? The MouTh of course (la BouChe) ! That's right, « la bouche ça se bouche »! And this double meaning of « bouche » in French is also found in the Greek SToMa, which means both a PoiNT, a mouth, and the mouth of a river; and from which SToMaCh derives. You've got to admit, it's « a bit of a mouthful », the stuff that wedges the stake: « ça vous en bouche un coin (a wedge in French) » !

Here we go again, I hear the Freudians laughing in the back of the room. What? Does this contraction story remind you of the PeNis stuck in the VaGiNa or in the mouth? You really do have the wrong idea.

Let's get back to the wonderful stuff that stuffs - or chokes - and to this « bouche qui se bouche », this mouth that chokes. What do you say when you want to SiLenCe someone, like a linguist or a Pharisian anthropologist? HuSh hush (ChuT in French)! ShuT up! and in Hebrew, ShTowQ! or ṢTowM! Yes, this is not a Sin but a Samekh, but the Samekh is a little rascal - I'll come back to this one soon. Incidentally, ṢaTaM as shutting up is found in Lamentations, chapter 3, verse 8.

Now that you've got a good grasp of « ShaTa » in the Paleolithic era, you're ready for an « enlightening » rereading of a very important passage in the Bible. Indeed, since my Christian friends have been treated to an original commentary on the Gospels, I can't let my Jewish friends go home empty-handed.

This passage is from the book of Numbers, chapter 24, where BaLaQ, the king of MowʔaB, asks the prophet BiLʕaM to curse Israel, and where, thanks to divine intervention, BiLʕaM instead blesses Israel three times. As you'll see, this story is also a « ShaTa » story.

First, in verse 1 of chapter 24, we find « ShaTa » in « VaYaSheT ʔeL HaMiDBaR PaNaYV », translated as « he turned his face to the desert ». Now you know that no turning is happening, instead it should be read « he STooD facing the desert ».

Above all, the prophet BiLʕaM is called « HaGeBeR SheTuWM HaʕaYiN », which is translated as « the man of clear SiGhT ». And here, my friends, I think we're on the wrong track. For sure, BiLʕaM was clairvoyant - but that doesn't matter. What matters is that he had, not a pierced eYe, but a STuFFed eye. Yes: BiLʕaM was BLinD.

No one has ever made this connection; only Paleolithic linguistics allows us to do so. The fact that BiLʕaM was blind explains a lot in the story, which is fundamentally about « SiGhT ». The most famous sight is in chapter 22, verse 23, where BiLʕaM's donkey sees an angel and SToPs on the road, whereas BiLʕaM doesn't see him until God unveils his eyes - « VaYaGeL » - verse 31.

There's also the fact that BaLaQ literally takes BiLʕaM by the arm, with the verb « LaQa’H » to swing him around and make him STaND on top of the various hills, for example in chapter 22, verse 41. There's also the passage where BaLaQ describes that the children of Israel have covered the eYe of the earth, to describe that they are numerous, in chapter 22, verse 5, and the verb ʔaRaR is used to express the curse, word which also means light (as I explained in my video on the sound « Ra »).

Then in chapter 23, BiLʕaM asks BaLaQ, the king, to build an altar, when generally, building an altar is quite a private matter. This might be a way to humiliate the king, but it makes much more sense if BiLʕaM is unable to do it himself. Next, in verse 3, BiLʕaM says that he will seek God, who will tell him what he will show him. Again, this expression makes perfect sense if BiLʕaM is blind.

Then, in verse 21, BiLʕaM recites « He sees no iniquity in Jacob, he sees no evil in Israel ». He's not saying what he himself sees, but what God sees. But there's more. What does BaLaQ do when he's fed up with BiLʕaM blessing Israel instead of cursing it? He claps his hands. Because BiLʕaM can't see him, and that's the only way he can signal him to stop. And to finish, we find « ShaTa » when BiLʕaM, in his finale, turns against Balaq and curses the « BeNeY SheT », the sons of arrogance.

Indeed, BiLʕaM was blind, and he is in fact the only blind character in the Bible. In the Paleolithic era, being blind was sometimes a distinguishing SiGN, especially if you were gifted with language. You could then become a PRoPheT, a MeSSiah, a MaShyaḤ, whose word had the power to uNiTe people. Many civilizations have similarly featured blind Messiahs, most notably ancient Greece.