Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Trevor Peterson <06PETERSON AT cua.edu>]

>===== 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