Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Philip:

It is the context more than any other factor which determines which root to 
look at.

For example, I have a mild form of dyslexia. I now realize that as early as 
first grade, I learned to read in context, thus was able to avoid most 
problems associated with dyslexia (It was not diagnosed until after I 
received my BA). If a sentence or phrase doesn’t fit the context, I go back 
and reread it, watching the letters change before my eyes. However tests, 
which often lack such context, are a different matter.

Similarly, while reading the unpointed text, the context usually tells me 
which root a lexeme is connected to. For example, in a passage mentioning the 
transfer of title from one person to another, the sentence WYXL )T HBYT I 
automatically read the verb as coming from the root NXL, only if that doesn’t 
make sense will I stop and take a closer look. But if he just built the house 
and is just bringing it into common use, then the verb comes from the root 
XLL “to make common” with derivative meanings of “to bring into production”, 
“to make use of” also “common” in contrast to “set apart” (which we often 
translate as “holy”) (watch out here, there are two different roots connected 
with XLL, the second referring to boring, as in piercing or wounding which is 
also used metaphorically). In short, I look for good sentence structure which 
has the verb, subject and object that fit in the context with correct syntax 
of the whole passage.

The problem that we run into as non-native speakers of Biblical Hebrew is 
that we often don’t recognize that a lexeme could stem from two or more 
roots, we often don’t know the roots, hence we will lock onto a root that 
doesn’t make sense. The Masoretes ran into the same problem: they were 
non-native speakers of Biblical Hebrew who had a further difficulty in that 
they were handed a tradition of reading that they were expected to preserve. 
It is demonstrable that occasionally they were wrong as far as meaning is 
concerned (though it is possible that we today read their points differently 
than how they were originally intended), though on the whole they did a 
really good job.

What I would like to see is a training tool that helps people read the text 
as did the pre-Masoretes. To make this work, there are two things I see as 
needed: 1) a dictionary that is very tight on its glosses, that makes no 
attempt to help a translator make smooth copy in English nor any other 
language and 2) when the student clicks on a lexeme, he is presented with all 
the options, the same way as a pre-Masorete would have been. Expected is that 
the student will know his Hebrew grammar and is prepared to make sentence 
diagrams like what we had to do back in grade school.

Karl W. Randolph.

----- Original Message -----
From: "A. Philip Brown II" <apbrown2 AT prodigy.net>

> 
> Hi, Karl,
> 
> What you suspected is correct. The gloss options are based on the pointed
> text.  Your idea is an interesting one, though.  I suspect that the
> syntagmatic associations of any given Hebrew lexeme would have made the
> number of viable root options much smaller for a native Hebrew speaker than
> for those of us coming in from the outside.
> 
> Blessings,
> Philip
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karl Randolph [mailto:kwrandolph AT email.com]
> 
> Philip:
> 
> Just curious, does BibleWorks with the unpointed text use a tagged text, or
> does it give the reader a list of options based on the form of the text?
> 
> For example, YXL could be from XWL, XLH, XLL, YXL or NXL (if a verb) and the
> context will indicate which meaning to use, or was the text tagged so that
> only the gloss the tagger thought correct pops up?
> 
> Yours, Karl W. Randolph.
-- 
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm