Nacham נָחַם translation

[Lon]

Hello,
I'm a Hebrew initiate (made brief introduction in the welcome section).  


 I've had several years of Greek, German, and now a year of Hebrew, which isn't enough for really digging into translation, so I joined to brush up and have questions answered as I'm going along.

What I've been noting, with ancient Hebrew, is translators tend to use context to translate particular words, hence נָחַם Nacham, has a list of possibility for translations:   Comfort, Repent, Relent, changed my mind, and tend to replace the one word with larger vocabulary in conveyance.

I'm under the impression that Nacham is the root word "sigh."    When I'm trying to translate, I tend to go to the root meaning, first, and often last.    There are all kinds of issues with translating any particular language, but with Tanakh Hebrew, there were only about 8k words. The idea of giving multiple meanings to Hebrew expression for particularly English, where we have over a half a million words for expression is understandable, but for me, back-loading on translation, meaning into words that are (to me) imported back upon Hebrew Tanakh simplicity.    

As I look at the options from a standard concordance, I have to wonder if 'to sigh' is being pushed further by context, rather than by the word itself in translation.    

Exodus 32:14, by example, might not convey well as 'G-d sighed.'   Relented perhaps the better for English understanding, but it is my thinking "G-d sighed" is 1, the actual equivalent, and 2,'relented' the action contextually following the word Nacham.   IOW, "G-d sighed" followed by "He didn't bring disaster" where we allow context to inform instead of adding translated thoughts we are just about to translate anyway (a redundancy and it seems to me, a force upon the one word).  

So the argument for translation would be:  Minimal, allow the reader to come to conclusions and don't over-stuff any particular word with context that is already given, especially when context definitely fills out meaning.   

One problem:   "G-d changed His mind," is one go-to for translators and I've all kinds of issues with it being legitimate.   For me, 'changed one's mind' is vague, and not very meaningful for understanding any particular text, even in English.    Rather, the action following 'I changed my mind' is pertinent, and Nacham, rather the set up for that action.    Revisiting Exodus 32:14, "G-d changed His mind" goes much further in assumption than "G-d sighed."   I can intimate 'why' but if I translated that intimation, it appears to me, I've forced the text and translation and back-loaded it with meaning that can and often does redirect a reader from original intent (again, such is my drive when trying to be faithful translating any text).   

On point is a question of whether or not, based on my translating inclination, to always go as minimal and faithful to a word's meaning whenever meaning can be deciphered by further contextual reading.   I prefer word-for-word over against thought-for-thought, simply because of the middle-man between me and actually getting to the gist of a text. 

Thoughts, input appreciated and thank you.  -Lon

[Lon]

Thanks for input Glen. It yet seems to me, that the options are contextual, thus are the thrust of translation contextually, rather than the word itself, by itself. I'm yet thinking "G-d sighed" Nacham, in its basic form, simply means 'sighed.' The ensuing action is what is often attributed to Nacham's meaning.

The problem I'm having is discussing contextual interpretation where G-d repents (as if He would need to?), or 'changes His mind (as if He'd need to). Rather, we tend to see interaction with man, as man-related for change. Thus Moses wasn't 'changing G-d's mind, but rather was interacting with G-d as intercessor, needful as the man G-d chose for intercession.

On point: G-d didn't 'change His mind,' but rather interacted with His intercessor as a necessary part of interaction for Israel and the covenant. Thus, it seems to me (and I'm asking about my perception), is that we've back-loaded meaning where 'to sigh' is the better translation, because we are trying to contexts to Nacham interpretation. Would it not be more correct to translated "G-d sighed" (not literally, with breath), and see where the rest of the story takes us for understanding 'why G-d sighed?

[RabbiO]

One possibility, of course, is you are incorrect about the root word. There are other possibilities, but this is one place to start.