Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Contextual Semantic Domains

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: furuli AT online.no
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Contextual Semantic Domains
  • Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 23:33:29 +0100

Dear David,


It is good to hear that you have benefited from this thread. I do not think I am the right person to answer your questions below, because I have no experience in the practical work of making a Hebrew dictionary or a lexicon. I think one needs to have such an experience in order to see the real advantages and and problems with a particular organization of words in a lexical work. I approach lexical semantics from the angle of the user of words, from a translator's point of view: What is meaning? Where is meaning found? How can meaning be conveyed from one language to another? And: What is the fundamental unit of translation? Is it the word (1) or is it a bigger unit? I also approach words from the point of view of the grammarian: Do each grammatical form signal one concept in the minds of native speakers? And most important for me, because it is the very foundation of the thesis I am writing: Which parts of the verbal system of Classical Hebrew represent "semantic meaning" (are uncancellable) and which represent "conversational pragmatic implicature" (are dependent on the context, thus being cancellable)?

Having some expertise in connection with the questions above does not give me an expertise in the art of making a good wordbook or lexicon, but this fact that expertise in one side of a discipline does not automatically lead to expertise in another side, illuminates one side of the choosing of a particular organization of words in a lexicon: Who are the target group for this wordbook or lexicon? What are the needs of this target group? Is the purpose of the users just to get a core-sense of the words, or do they want a thorough analysis? Because the purpose of the lexicons and wordbooks are different, it is difficult to make a comparison of their qualities and put one above another. They all serve useful purposes, and for a thorough study of a word, different kinds of lexicons should be used. I view both NIDOTTE and TDOT to be good lexical works which give much fine information.

One of the best lexical works for general use in any Semitic language, in my opinion. is "Comparative Dictionary of Ge'ez" by Wolf Leslau (1987). Here we find both Latin letters and Ethiopic syllables, we find English glosses, different forms of the words, and Semitic cognates. We find both a Ge'ez-English part and an English-Ge'ez part, and there is a list of Ethiopic roots that are found in other Semitic languages. This would be a good pattern for a Hebrew Dictionary for general use as well.

Whereas all Hebrew lexical works have certain advantages, I see two dangers:

1) Readers are led to believe that they get the lexical meaning of words, whereas this meaning is only found in the minds of native speakers (I have discussed this before).

2) Theological views are smuggled into the lexical work and are presented as lexical information (cf. J. Barr (1975). "The Semantics of Biblical Language", Oxford: Oxford University Press.)

I will use a hapax as an example, namely, ) i++YM. The word is believed to be related to the Akkadian word etemmu, whose usual reference is "the spirit of a dead person," but it can also refer to "a necromancer". In the new Koehler/Baumgartner we find just one entry, "spirit of a dead person", but in the old one we find "charmers" as well. Thus the new edition forces a theological viewpoint on the reader while the old one lets the reader decide. "The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew" which I often find very useful, have just one gloss, namely "ghost," thus leaving no choice for the reader. The place where I find a balanced and interesting discussion is in "Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (1981), R. L. Harris et. al. In other cases this last mentioned work may contain theology while others do not. My point, therefore, is that a perfect lexical work does not exist, and we will never create one. So we should teach our students the dangers of lexical works, and even more important, we should teach them that they should not expect to find the *lexical meaning* of words there.


(1) ("word" is a rather vague term but it fits this context.)


Best regards

Rolf Furuli

University of Oslo


Rolf,

I found your message fascinating, helpful, and relevant, having just read
the chapter by Harold P. Scamlin called "The Study of Semantics in General
Linguistics" in Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew ed. W. R. Bodine. He talks
about referential meaning as the meaning that cannot be known by non
mother-tongue speakers. It is precisely the examples given by a good lexicon
that help such people (and some mother-tongue speakers too) find these
meanings. His other terms are 'emotive' meanings (connotations) and
'grammatical' meanings. He also talks about unmarked meanings, which are
often used as glosses in dictionaries, vs. marked meanings, which can only
be known by hearing or reading the context.

Do you have any specific comments on the existing Hebrew dictionaries,
including NIDOTTE and TDOT? If lexical items have to be organised somehow,
traditionally alphabetically by root or form, or more recently by semantic
domain, how would you suggest organising them? Cognitive linguistics would
add another dimension - the 'frame' - to semantic domain. How helpful is
that?

David Gray






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page