Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Gen. 1:26--Connotation of the beth preposition

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
  • To: Karl Randolph <kwrandolph AT email.com>
  • Cc: Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Gen. 1:26--Connotation of the beth preposition
  • Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 02:36:41 -0800

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/





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page