Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - HALOT and comparative data ( was RE: [b-Hebrew] Elohim)

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Trevor Peterson <06PETERSON AT cua.edu>
  • To: Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
  • Cc: b-hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: HALOT and comparative data ( was RE: [b-Hebrew] Elohim)
  • Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 07:54:28 -0500

>===== Original Message From Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org> =====
>So what are we arguing about? The adequacy of HALOT?

Sure, why not? :-) This relates to a criticism voiced by M. Sokoloff, BTW, in
his review of the Aramaic section of HALAT (the German version on which HALOT
is based). Since Kutscher didn't survive long enough to work on the whole
thing, apparently they at some point discontinued the practice of specifying
Jewish Aramaic dialects. (This is a good review to have, BTW, and it's
available online at
http://hermia.ingentaselect.com/vl=10035855/cl=17/nw=1/rpsv/cw/brill/09290761/v7n1/s5/p74.
His corrections are referenced quite often in the English version, but they
are not always followed, so you have to look at the review to see where he
thinks they're wrong.) Apparently it was not a space issue, since they
followed Kutscher's practice in the earlier sections. For our purposes,
that's
not the precise issue, but it's still rather vague to say something is
attested in Aramaic without specifying the dialect. I suppose there might be
something somewhere in one of the prefaces that explains that the
abbreviation
without any qualifiers means all Aramaic dialects; I doubt, though, that this
is the case. I realize that it would take quite a bit of space to cite actual
texts, but when there's question as to whether a form is merely a loan or
not,
it doesn't seem terribly helpful not to specify at least the periods or
dialects in question.

Another caution I would like to make is that comparative data is rarely so
straightforward that a presentation like we find in HALOT can be of much use
on its own. In addition to the significance of when and where a form appears,
there is also the matter of knowing how a given language works. For instance,
in this case a Hebraist who has not studied Ugaritic would not pick up on the
fact that Ugaritic has an augmented plural form, which may very well account
for the feminine ilht. That may end up being insignificant to the issue at
hand, but it might not. If a person doesn't know about it, their ability to
interpret the evidence presented in HALOT is impaired. The citations in HALOT
should be treated as pointers to potential evidence--not particularly
valuable
for arguing anything, but helpful in tracking down the real evidence.

Trevor Peterson
CUA/Semitics




  • HALOT and comparative data ( was RE: [b-Hebrew] Elohim), Trevor Peterson, 01/29/2004

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page