Boid on Hebrew/Aramaic words

On the no. 12. I don’t know whether there was ever any homiletical etymology dependent on separating the two components. I can’t think of anything. Here is the most I can say just now. The root of the second component in Hebrew is ‘AYIN-SIN (not SHIN)-RESH and in Aramaic ‘AYIN-SAMECH-RESH. It would be very arbitrary in Masoretic Hebrew to treat a SIN as a SHIN. On the other hand, some dialects of Hebrew (including the Samaritan) make no distinction, having SHIN all the time. Now, a STRONG word of caution. You can’t take bits from a Semitic word, e.g. you can’t separate out the sar from basar. You have to keep to the root, which is nearly always three consonants or two consonants and a fluctuating long vowel filling the place of a consonant. The remains of the old two-consonant roots of Afroasiatic are very few. On the other hand, the order of the consonants sometimes changes, so that there can be two roots with the same or similar meaning. Also, some interchange of consonants can occur. Examples: PQD and BDQ or Ts-‘-Q and Z-‘-Q or Ts-‘-R and Z-‘-R. Sometimes these phenomena are used for fanciful connections for homiletical purposes. The LXX in Isaiah LIII has “he was buried amongst the rich” instead of “he was buried amongst the wicked”, reading or pretending to read ‘ashirim from ‘AYIN-SHIN-RESH instead of resha’im from RESH-SHIN-‘AYIN. A fanciful etymology connecting ‘AYIN-SIN (or SHIN)-RESH in the noun shnem-‘asar 12 with ‘AYIN-SHIN-RESH as the root of ‘ashir “rich” could have existed. The difficulty is that I don’t know of any surviving homily in which this happens.