Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Reinier de Blois" <r.de.blois AT solcon.nl>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 05:13:57 +0100
To: "'Karl Randolph'" <kwrandolph AT email.com>
Subject: RE: [b-hebrew] lexicography?

> Dear Karl,
> 
> > Unlike most of the people you have working on your project, I 
> > have written a dictionary from Biblical Hebrew to English. 
> > And for my dictionary, I developed a methodology that appears 
> > to be quite different from yours.
> 
> Yes, I understood that from some of your other messages I read on the
> list.
> 
> > First of all, I am not an iconoclast. I started with 
> > dictionaries written by other people and used their 
> > definitions if I had no difficulty with them. An example of 
> > that, SWP was defined as "reed" and I didn't question it 
> > until a discussion on b-hebrew brought out that it probably 
> > means "aquatic plant" which would include seaweed. The 
> > argument is that the Red Sea does not come from the meaning 
> > of "reed sea" but from the concept that it has a lot of 
> > aquatic plants (seaweed) in it.
> 
> For me, "reed" is a gloss, not a definition. I should clarify one other
> thing here: SDBH is a dictionary primarily intended for Bible
> translators all over the world. Many of them are not native English
> speakers. English is just a vehicle of communication. Therefore more
> extensive definitions are needed so that the users get a complete
> picture of the meaning of a word. Glosses are often misleading. In
> cognitive linguistics the meaning of a word is linked to a mental image.
> Every word invokes a mental representation in the mind of the person who
> hears it. This representation depends on culture, world view, etc. If a
> dictionary uses glosses only there is a big chance that the English word
> used evokes a picture that is significantly different from the one that
> existed in the mind of the Hebrew speaker. Therefore we are trying to
> use definitions that contain several kinds of information, such as:
>       -descriptive information (what does it look like)
>       -source information (to what category does it belong, what is it
> made of, why is it done)
>       -function (what is it used for, what is the purpose?)
>       -connotation (how is it regarded?)
>       -participants (who is doing what to whom? Is it an inanimate
> object, it is human, is it God?)
>  
> > The first sign that I would have difficulty with a definition 
> > is where there are several meanings given. What made me start 
> > writing my dictionary is when I looked up a lexeme in one of 
> > the other dictionaries, and found five distinct meanings, but 
> > when I looked in a concordance, the lexeme was used only four 
> > times in Tanakh. How could there be five definitions when it 
> > was used only four times? ( don't remember what word that 
> > was, for the event happened nearly 20 years ago.)
> 
> I share that sentiment with you. One additional reasoning here is that
> traditional dictionaries lean on etymology and philology a lot, which
> are highly unreliable methods for discovering the meaning. Meaning is
> first and formost determined by context.
> 
> > When I was young, I lived in Germany and Norway. When I 
> > returned to the U.S. I had fluent knowledge of two foreign 
> > languages and a working knowledge of a third. From this 
> > experience I learned the following rules for learning lexemes 
> > in a foreign language:
> > 
> > 1) A lexeme almost always has only one meaning. It may have 
> > no equivalent in English (even for words from the same 
> > etymological root) or there may exist an almost exact 
> > equivalency. The meaning may be very broad and general, or it 
> > may be very narrow and specific, or in between.
> > 
> > 2) Where a lexeme has more than one meaning, there is usually 
> > a discernible connection, for example, Birne in German means 
> > both light bulb and pear, the connection being that the early 
> > light bulbs had a pear like shape.
> 
> Yes, but in many cases the speakers of the language are not even aware
> of that relation. But that does not make it less useful.
> 
> > 3) Where a lexeme has a narrow and specific meaning, it often 
> > is either partially or wholly a subset of another lexeme. 
> > Therefore, one way to learn a lexeme is to compare it to its synonyms.
> > 
> > 4) Lexeme meanings are best recognized by the action they 
> > refer to, not the form. This is especially true of ancient Hebrew.
> > 
> > 5) Lexeme understanding and usage may be influenced by the 
> > context, such as literary style, figures of speech, use as 
> > euphemism, or where the presence of a specific lexeme may 
> > actually make it part of a complex lexeme (two or more words 
> > combining to make another meaning, e.g. "strike out" having a 
> > different meaning than "strike" alone, but the historical 
> > connection is still discernible.)
> > 
> > 6) This may be unique to Hebrew, where a noun of an object 
> > can be a reference to an action. For example, David and his 
> > men were a XWMH a protective barrier for Nabel's sheep and 
> > shepherds, i.e. their actions protected.
> > 
> > 7) This is, after all, a dictionary from one language to 
> > another, therefore, as much as possible, I used as few words 
> > as possible, preferably one, to describe a Hebrew lexeme as 
> > long as that was accurate. For example, XB), used about 34 
> > times, has almost the exact same meaning as "conceal" in 
> > English, though sometimes in Hebrew it is with a niphal where 
> > English would have a reflexive or active. (There is a slight 
> > but noticeable difference between XB) and XBH, so I list them 
> > separately.)
> > 
> > (Though Biblical Hebrew was written over a span of 1000 
> > years, most of it was written during a time when the language 
> > was pretty stable. There was some change which is discernible 
> > and an example of dialectal variation, but almost none that I 
> > could see that would change the definitions of lexemes.)
> > 
> > In reference to category 4) above, ancient Hebrew seems to 
> > categorize according to action or function, not according to 
> > form or appearance. For example, (WP or (WP KNP is usually 
> > translated as "bird", but that is not accurate. It actually 
> > refers to flying creatures where the action is the deciding 
> > factor, hence a bat or flying insect is (WP while an ostrich 
> > or penguin is not. (This is also an example of 1) above-there 
> > is no equivalency for this term in English.) Similarly, a XBL 
> > rope would be defined by its ability to bind things together, 
> > not its shape.
> 
> One question here: Does KNP meaning "wing" or "flying"? Ostriches and
> penguins have wings but cannot fly. KNP often refers to a slip of a
> mantle as well so the meaning "wing" seems appropriate here.
> 
> > My dictionary started out as notes in the margins of other 
> > dictionaries. If I found multiple meanings given for a 
> > lexeme, I would analyze it to try to distill it down to the 
> > one meaning that I expected to find, whether broad or narrow. 
> > Later, I would take that one meaning and see if it fit all 
> > the lexeme's occurrences in Tanakh. The next step was to 
> > compare it to the meaning given by other forms from the same 
> > root, sometimes a noun or verb from the same root may clarify 
> > the meaning of an adjective, for example. The final step was 
> > to compare it with synonyms, which would sometimes lead me to 
> > rethink the meaning of the lexeme in question, sometimes that 
> > of a synonym or two. While comparing synonyms, I ask myself 
> > which of the synonyms have a narrower, more specific meaning, 
> > is one entirely or partially a subset of the other, what 
> > clues from the contexts are there to help made a 
> > determination? Before I entered it into a computer, my 
> > dictionary reached its greatest extant in the m  argins of my 
> > concordance with extensive cross-referencing to synonyms.
> 
> This important. I agree with that methodology, but from a cognitive view
> point. Synonyms help us to determine to what category a word belongs.
> Categories differ from one language to another. Synonyms have played an
> important role in my efforts to set up a system of lexical semantic
> domains.
> 
> > For example, when I looked at )BD, there are two main 
> > definitions given in dictionaries: to perish and to be lost. 
> > When I tried to unify the meaning under "perish", it plainly 
> > didn't work. But when I tried to unify under "lost", I was 
> > able to get a unified meaning where sometimes it is used as a 
> > euphemism for death. But the lostness is slightly different 
> > than in English, with more of an emphasis on not being able 
> > to be found. Often I find places where traditional 
> > translations render )BD as "perish", it actually works better 
> > when translated as "lost, not findable", e.g. the last verse 
> > of Psalm 1, "For YHWH knows the way of the just, but the way 
> > of the wicked is unfindable." (which also better fits the 
> > parallelism here).
> 
> Yes, and a lost animal will certainly perish. These two meanings have a
> lot in common and are certainly related. Only a good definition can
> describe the meaning of a word in such a way that relationships such as
> these can be understood. In this way Bible translators have the tools
> they need to rethink this meaning into their own culture and world view
> and find a good equivalent.
>  
> > (I don't know any cognate languages, not even Mishnaic 
> > Hebrew. That is both a strength and a weakness. A weakness in 
> > that the cognate languages sometimes clarify unclear lexemes 
> > used only once to a few times in Tanakh. A strength in that I 
> > react to the language more like a native speaker, less like a 
> > scholar, which is my goal.)
> 
> I don't either and that is OK. I strongly agree with the native speaker
> approach. 
> 
> > To answer two specific questions from your last letter:
> > 
> > XBL in Job 34:31 needs to look at the context of the whole 
> > chapter of Job 34. The idea of the chapter is that God does 
> > not act capriciously or unjustly, but he is consistent and 
> > just. The first part of the verse says, "For God is not the 
> > one who says, 'I lift up,." How does ending it "I do not 
> > destroy." fit this context? I don't see how "to destruction" 
> > fits this context at all. But within the context of the 
> > chapter I do see how "I am not bound" does fit. How to render 
> > the verse in English is the hard part, for God is not the one 
> > who says "I take up (start an action) but I am not bound 
> > (required to act in a consistent and just manner)."
> 
> Maybe I did not make myself clear here. One of XBL's basic meanings is
> to destroy. In certain contexts this may have a more abstract meaning
> referring to "destruction of morality" or something like that. I believe
> that XBL in Nehemiah and Job 34:31 refers to that type of inner
> corruption, hence my suggestion: I will not sin.
> 
> > Concerning XYDH, when the queen of Sheba came to Solomon, so 
> > I'm told, her main interest was in dealing with trade issues. 
> > This was not merely a trip to satisfy her curiosity. Her 
> > people had been trading far and wide for a long time, now 
> > suddenly here was a new and powerful force in trade. She was 
> > asking him questions to see if Solomon would make a good 
> > trade partner, and apparently she was satisfied with the 
> > answers she got.
> > 
> > In closing, because I focus on actions instead of formal 
> > semantic domains, I wonder how useful I  would be in helping 
> > you. Often the same action in different contexts has vastly 
> > different consequences-my understanding is that the semantic 
> > domain focuses more on the consequences than the actions. For 
> > example, I could swing a sword as part of an exercise routine 
> > (peaceful, good), to protect someone from a wicked aggressor 
> > (violence, good) or to murder someone (violence, bad). Those 
> > are all the same action. Does not the semantic domains treat 
> > that action differently, hence list them separately? Yet by 
> > action, they would all be listed once.
> 
> I would never list all occurrences of swinging a sword separately. This
> is one lexical meaning requiring one lexical domain. It is used in
> different frames though and every frame is listed in my dictionary.
> Exerfcise routines, war, murder are all different frames. The only
> purpose of SBH is to show people how words with one single lexical
> meaning can be used in different frames.
> 
> Take XEBEL, for instance:
> 
> Lexical meaning 1: rope
>       Frame 1: the same rope, used in a climbing frame/context
>       Frame 1: the same rope, used in a measuring frame
>       etc.
> Lexical meaning 2: piece of land (measure off with a rope)
> Lexical meaning 3: property (piece of land extended to wider use)
> Lexical meaning 4: something that tries to control you (like a rope)
> 
> People can use SDBH to study Hebrew in two ways: They can look up the
> lexical domain of rope and find other words, such as (ABOT, )AGUDDAH,
> etc. The comparison of XEBEL with those other words help to really
> understand the difference between these three words. A solid and well
> structured definition of each word is needed in order to be able to do
> this well. A Bible translator needs this in order to be able to find
> equivalents in the target language.
> At the same time, the user can do a search on the basis of a frame. If,
> for instance, XEBEL is used in the frame of measuring. A search for the
> frame yields a list of words that belong to this frame, both objects
> (measuring rope, measuring reed) and events (to measure). That is
> another perspective.
> Lexical domains (or cognitive categories) give a paradigmatic
> perspective (words belonging to the same category) and contextual
> domains (or cognitive frames) a syntagmatic perspective (words belonging
> to the same frame. Both aspects can be very helpful to understand how
> the Hebrew language worked including its culture and world view. So all
> the divisions of meanings and submeanings are needed in order to be able
> to get to the internal coherence of the language within its system of
> experience, practices, and beliefs.
> 
> > Thank you for your attention and your response. Sorry the 
> > letter got so long.
> 
> I appreciate this discussion, Karl, and I'm sure this will not be the
> last time. Your input is welcome. We have moved our database to a new
> site: www.sdbh.org. The way the data is presented has changed a little.
> Initially, only lexical meanings are given. By activating the [more]
> hyperlink more contextual information becomes available. Double clicking
> on a domain yields a list of other items belonging to the same domain,
> etc.
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Reinier
> 
> 

-- 
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm