15 PARONOMASIA OR WORDPLAY? single word in the same sense, one could refer to Hosea 8,3 and 8,5 38. Both verses have the verb xnz (“to reject”). This repetition of the same word results in an identical sound pattern of both words, but is with- out any variation in meaning., Some scholars have, however, seen wordplay in such repetitions 39. (2) Some figures of word that share similar sound patterns but do not play on a difference in meaning are referred to as figura etymologica 40. Word combinations that reflect a schema etymologicum are in fact particular syntactical constructions consisting of cognate words. One could refer to Genesis 37,9, in which the construction Mwlx ytmlx (literally “I have dreamt a dream”) appears. Since the verb Mlx and the noun Mwlx are cognate, a sim- ilarity in sound is obvious; but again there is no variation in meaning. (3) Stylistic figures such as alliteration, assonance and other kinds of rhyme are also not to be catalogued as “wordplay” in our opinion ― and this in contrast with Casanowicz 41. This does not mean that the sound play apparent in some cases of wordplay could not be seen as alliterating or assonantal. However, such combined words should then also display a difference in meaning, and cannot be called wordplay solely on the basis of their alliterating or assonantal qualities. One finds an example in which assonance is actually combined with a dis- similarity of meaning in Proverbs 10,16 42. Both the word tl(p (“work, positive reward”) as well as the noun t)wbt (“produce, yield”) are vocalized with qibbus or sureq on the one hand and patah term geminatio can be used for both possibilities. In practice, however, all these concepts are very often mixed. 38 R.B. CHISHOLM, “Wordplay in the Eighth-Century Prophets”, BSac 144 (1987) 44-52, 45. 39 Cf. for example CHISHOLM, “Wordplay in the Eighth-Century Prophets”, 45-46; SCHORCH, Between Science and Magic, 208. Contra CASANOWICZ, Pa- ronomasia in the Old Testament, 26. 40 BÜHLMANN – SCHERER, Stilfiguren der Bibel, 20-21. The idea that the grammatical concept of Hebrew paronomasia is related to or is even the same as the description attributed to the figura etymologica is confirmed in the grammars of W. GESENIUS – E. KAUTZSCH, Hebraïsche Grammatik (Leipzig 26 1896) 359; B.K. WALTKE – M. O’CONNOR, An Introduction to Biblical He- brew Syntax (Winona Lake, IN 1990) 584. 41 CASANOWICZ, Paronomasia in the Old Testament, 3-4. Cf. CHERRY, Pa- ronomasia and Proper Names in the Old Testament, 6; NOEGEL, “‘Word Play’ in Qoheleth”, 4-16. 42 CASANOWICZ, Paronomasia in the Old Testament, 55 and 64; WATSON, Classical Hebrew Poetry, 243.