b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum
List archive
RE:earlier dictionaries? was [b-hebrew] Offend/dealt corruptly - chet bet lamed (nehemiah 1:7)
- From: "Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>
- To: "Hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
- Subject: RE:earlier dictionaries? was [b-hebrew] Offend/dealt corruptly - chet bet lamed (nehemiah 1:7)
- Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 15:39:17 -0500
Harold:
Are earlier lexicographers inspired in the theological sense, that they never
made any mistakes? Yet, when I look at the dictionary that I wrote, only a
tiny minority of the entries have different meanings than given by earlier
lexicographers (who sometimes disagreed). The big change I made was to
compare lexemes with their synonyms where they could be recognized.
Secondly, I have a different philosophy of lexicography, especially when it
applies to Biblical Hebrew: that the lexemes meaning, hence its definition,
is to be recognized by the action it refers to, only secondarily by the form
that it takes. Even so, most of my entries have the same or similar meanings
as in earlier lexica.
Thirdly, whereever possible, I look for a unifying meaning that ties all uses
of a lexeme together: root and derivitives. That is not always possible.
After all, a word may have changed such that it looks as if it came from one
root, when it actually came from another. Or a word could originally have
been a loan word with a pronunciation that makes it appear that it is related
to one root, when it isnt. To try to find a unified meaning, I go through
each occurance of a word in Tanakh asking if, in each context, does it give a
semantically recognizeable and consistant meaning where all uses share the
same root definition.
Where there are synonyms, I tried to find where they differ in meaning. Not
always easy.
One problem is the small corpus we have written in Biblical Hebrew with its
large number of hapax legomai words, idioms and phrases.
One of the few words where I differ from earlier dictionaries is in the
meaning of XBL, where I see no need for a definition including to offend or
deal corruptly. It has many derivitive meanings, but they all go back to a
root meaning referring to knotting up or tying up. For example, giving birth
comes from the idea of labor pangs, which are the contractions (knotting up)
of the muscles. Sailors have a reputation going back to ancient times for
their skill with knots. A loan is something that one is tied to, even though
this is not a physical knot. And so forth.
I looked at earlier dictionaries, I just dont agree with them all the time.
Karl W. Randolph.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Harold R. Holmyard III" <hholmyard AT ont.com>
> Dear Karl,
>
> HH: I have to tell you that it bothers me that
> you ignore what every lexicon I'm familiar with,
> if I remember correctly, as a meaning for this
> Hebrew root XBL. If you plan to produce a
> dictionary, this sort of behavior seems
> irresponsible.
>
> Yours,
> Harold Holmyard
--
_______________________________________________
Talk More, Pay Less with Net2Phone Direct(R), up to 1500 minutes free!
http://www.net2phone.com/cgi-bin/link.cgi?143
-
RE:earlier dictionaries? was [b-hebrew] Offend/dealt corruptly - chet bet lamed (nehemiah 1:7),
Karl Randolph, 06/22/2004
- RE:earlier dictionaries? was [b-hebrew] Offend/dealt corruptly - chet bet lamed (nehemiah 1:7), Harold R. Holmyard III, 06/22/2004
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
- RE:earlier dictionaries? was [b-hebrew] Offend/dealt corruptly - chet bet lamed (nehemiah 1:7), Karl Randolph, 06/24/2004
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.