Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>]

Julie:

I started with a copy of Gesenius with regular access to BDB. Of the lexemes 
I looked up, it was very rare that the definitions differed substantially in 
those two dictionaries. In fact, I don’t remember any. My copy of Gesenius 
fell apart from much use. I also had Davidson’s Analytical Lexicon, which 
also fell apart. I had to have it rebound, but the last “lexicon” I used was 
Lisowsky’s Konkordanz zum Hebräischen Alten Testiment.

Davidson’s listed all the lexemes under their roots. Using that dictionary 
until it fell apart helped me learn to recognize the different inflections 
and derivitives.

Like Peter Kirk, my native tongue is English, however I have lived in 
non-English speaking environments forcing me to learn other languages. From 
those experiences I learned how to learn foreign languages, not as a second 
language, but as much as possible as a native speaker. I have tried to take 
the lessons learned to apply them to learning Biblical Hebrew.

The first lesson I learned is that lexemes have one core meaning (unless 
where there are two lexemes with the same pronunciation that have merged, 
like “to” and “two” in English). I found it easiest to learn to use the 
lexemes correctly if I could learn that core definition to recognize how it 
is used, even if it didn’t make sense in English. As far as I can tell, this 
is what Rolf Furuli means with his psycho-linguistics in word definitions.

Another of the lessons I applied was to compare synonyms, sometimes 
contrasting antonyms, to find out what lexemes mean. For example, there are 
over a dozen synonyms for R)H [ra‘ah] “to look, see” in Tanakh. Some synonyms 
have a broad meaning, such as “to put” in English, others much more 
restricted, such as “to set up”.

One concept specific to Biblical Hebrew, look to see how lexemes are actually 
used in Hebrew, not how we think (for theological or other reasons) they 
should mean. Ah, theologians love to spin airy castles of theological 
meaning, often based on definitions I couldn’t find when I looked at the 
original text. (Maybe I’m not imaginative enough.)

Already before my copy of Gesenius fell apart, I started filling the margins 
with pointers to synonyms and to try to recognize what is the one core 
meaning to each lexeme. As the Gesenius dictionary fell apart, I transfered 
the notes to the Lisowsky’s concordance. I noticed that Lisowsky had far 
fewer speculative meanings than Gesenius/BDB. He was also far more willing to 
admit that he was not sure of a definition. The last I heard, his concordance 
is out of print. Most of the time (95% of the time or more), my notes 
indicate that I agree with the definition as given, or a close synonym that I 
judge to be a slightly more accurate rendition into English.

About the same time my copy of Gesenius’ fell apart, I started reading Tanakh 
with a card covering the vowel points, which in the case of the Qoren edition 
left a text that was almost totally unpointed. When I switched to reading on 
my computer instead, I chose the Online Bible unpointed text (they also have 
a pointed text) because I don’t always agree with the points. As far as I 
know, theirs is the only unpointed text available.

I have since entered and expanded my notes into my computer (Macintosh 
format, Macwrite Pro document) keyed to Online Bible’s unpointed text. That 
is now my main dictionary. It is a work in progress: because I wrote it, I am 
willing upon reading a term in a context to say, “That doesn’t make sense” 
and proceed to reevaluate. Sometimes I push the envelop and speculate, but I 
like to do that here online and not in my notes, so I can be shot down if I’m 
wrong, which I often am. Even when I’m shot down, that helps me understand 
the text.

Sorry I couldn’t give you a reference to a published dictionary, but you 
asked what I use. I figured that it is best to tell not only what, but why.

Karl W. Randolph.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Julie Devall" <krena_li_mara AT hotmail.com>

> Hello All,
> 
> I am currently working on an independent study in lexicography, and have 
> benefitted much from the previous posts.  I also do not want to step into 
> the middle of Peter v. Karl.  But in a related thread, I know there are 
> other lexica than BDB, but wondered if Karl would tell us about the lexicon 
> he uses and why it is philosophically superior.  After all, I have problems 
> with some of BDB, but have always regarded it as my default.
> 
> All other guidance on how to correctly do lexicography is welcome and 
> appreciated.
> 
> many thanks,
> 
> Julie :)
-- 
__________________________________________________________
Sign-up for your own personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

Search Smarter - get the new eXact Search Bar for free!
http://www.exactsearchbar.com/