13 PARONOMASIA OR WORDPLAY? especially related to Hebrew language play 34. In Hebrew, and es- pecially in Hebrew poetry, form and content are so interrelated that the smallest change in the morphological structure of a word/phrase could result in a change of meaning. Thus, one could say that He- brew wordplay reflects the principle of the Hebrew language on the micro level. Precisely as form and content strengthen each other to express the meaning of the text to the reader, wordplay can only fulfill its function within the literary context when there is an in- teraction between sound and meaning. Wordplay is therefore centered on the two poles of “sound” and “meaning”, which in a specific combination with each other can lead to wordplay. Depending on the type of wordplay, one of the two poles will be highlighted more than the other. However, it is problematic to make a strict distinction between “sound-based” (paronomasia) and “sense-based” (polysemous) puns 35. According to us, all kinds of wordplay are intrinsically characterized by an interplay of both sound and meaning. Whereas some wordplay is characterized by polyse- mous puns, other word combinations rather highlight the identity or similarity in sound patterns. Nevertheless, the polysemous nature of words would not lead towards wordplay if the use of the same words did not bring up a similar sound pattern. As an example of wordplay that is based on the polysemous character of words, one could refer to Psalm 74,19 36. The ambiguous meaning of the Hebrew noun hyx is played on in this context, as it not only means “living one” or “ani- mal”, but can equally denote “community”. However, the two occur- rences of the noun hyx in verse 19 would not create any ambiguity if the dissimilarity in meaning were not related to an identity of sound. 34 As these characteristics are typical for Hebrew language, this defini- tion is specifically related to Hebrew wordplay. In our opinion, the definition cannot be used uncritically to characterize wordplay in whatever language. This is in contrast with, for example, Noegel, who intends to write a mono- graph (“Word Play” in Ancient Near Eastern Texts) in which he wants to pre- sent a taxonomy that can be used to study wordplay in all kinds of languages (i.e. Biblical Hebrew, Akkadian, Egyptian, Ugaritic and Armenian). Cf. NOE- GEL, “‘Word Play’ in Qoheleth”, 3. 35 Cf. SCHORCH, Between Science and Magic, 207. See in this respect also Cherry, who differentiates between “oral paronomasia” and “sense paronoma- sia”. Cf. CHERRY, Paronomasia and Proper Names in the Old Testament, 20-34. 36 CASANOWICZ, Paronomasia in the Old Testament, 34 and 56.