Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>]

Thanks, Karl, for your interesting thoughts. See below for a few comments.

On 22/01/2004 17:55, Karl Randolph wrote:

> ... Again on page 90 BDB insisted that “with” or “of”  be used for working in 
> crafts, where “in” is perfectly acceptable English. ...

BDB are not insisting on certain renderings. They are classifying senses 
and contextual uses. Here, I think, they have found a separate sense or 
contextual use for working in crafts, and described that; and then given 
as a gloss the most commonly used English equivalent.

> ... The impression I get from BDB is that they analyzed each tree almost in 
> isolation from the forest around it.
>  

Yes, they have analysed the trees in rather exhaustive detail. But they 
have then tried to classify these trees in the context of the forest, 
e.g. by dividing the senses of B- into five major categories each with 
various minor categories and sub-categories. You may not agree with 
their classification, but you can't deny that they have done it.

> Secondly, Biblical Hebrew lexemes should be studied according to Biblical 
> Hebrew standards. Comparisons, even to cognate languages let alone widely 
> disparate languages, to be done only later. It appears that BDB started with 
> such comparisons (though occasionally, especially in hapax legomai words, the 
> Hebrew doesn’t have enough data to indicate meaning).
>  

I don't think that's fair to BDB's methods. True, they have given 
evidence from cognate languages at the start of their entries, because 
that is or was the lexicographic convention. But positional priority 
does not imply logical priority.

> Thirdly the analysis should be done in context. Yes, BDB did this, but I mean 
> in even a broader sense: ...
>  

I won't disagree with you on this one. BDB's contexts are often too narrow.

> Fourth, probably should have been first, I look at function, what action is 
> described whereas BDB looked at form, how does it look in its uses? 
> Functionality often ties together apparently disparate uses into one 
> understanding. As a result, my first sentence covers half of the definition 
> given in BDB; one sentence for a page and a half of their work.
>  

Here there is indeed a difference in philosophy.


--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/