Mova0.5 pre-release⌕
☰
home / docs / papers / Ancient Hebrew / New Perspectives in Biblical and Rabbinic Hebrew

New Perspectives in Biblical and Rabbinic Hebrew

What it is about

A volume of 24 articles on the writing, phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics and discourse of Biblical and Rabbinic Hebrew; the book prints an abstract of each, and this card is written from those abstracts and the contents. The largest group is on the verb: Isaksson argues that wayyiqṭol was pronounced without gemination in Standard Biblical Hebrew (the doubling is a Second Temple reading innovation) and that its "consecutive" sense comes from a plain clause type wa + verb-first; Robar shows that wayyiqṭol is absent from much archaic poetry and behaves as a freely chaining verb in Job; Sjörs finds that Late Biblical Hebrew lengthens the 1st-person wayyiqṭol as a rule, with unlengthened forms in fixed formulas; Khan argues that the discourse dependency of weqaṭal and wayyiqṭol is encoded in the forms, from their origin in dependent clauses; Hornkohl argues for an indicative future of yiqṭol, with minimal pairs of certainty vs obligation. Other articles: Wilson gives exhaustive conditions for when finite הָיָה appears; van Wolde reads the 78 nifʿal verbs of Genesis as middle voice with a resultative view; Jones tests the claim that predicate adjectives mark new and stative verbs given information; Miller-Naudé and Naudé classify left-dislocation types by their resumptive element; Ariel traces the shift from post-nominal הַהוּא to pre-nominal אותו in Mishnaic Hebrew; Pat-El treats plural -îm/-ôt comparatively; Fassberg shows later texts prefer long III-y imperatives in the derived stems; Kingham classifies the heads of 3,400 time phrases by collocation statistics; Locatell maps polysemous adverbial conjunctions; Jeffay treats proper names as predicates in construct.

Ideas

For Mova

I1 goes into Syntax: the clause and the sentence (verbless and copular clauses) and the frame reader; I2 into Discourse: narrative, speech and the shape of a text and the event chain in world; I3 into Syntax: the clause and the sentence and tools/macula (head rules for dislocation); I4 into 12. Biblical, Mishnaic and Modern Hebrew compared and 11-mishnaic.md; I5 is a test for tools/macula on treebanks/hbo/ptnk.

Topics: Discourse analysis

Cite

The paper itself, not this card. BibTeX from the library's record of the work. DOI 10.11647/obp.0250

@book{hornkohl2021new,
  title = {{New Perspectives in Biblical and Rabbinic Hebrew}},
  author = {Hornkohl, Aaron D. and Khan, Geoffrey},
  year = {2021},
  doi = {10.11647/obp.0250},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11647/obp.0250}
}

References

159 references, 1 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

  1. Andrason, Alexander. 2011. ‘The Biblical Hebrew Verbal System in Light of Grammaticalization—the Second Generation’. Hebrew Studies 53: 351–83. ↗
  2. ———. 2012. ‘Thermodynamic Model of the Biblical Hebrew Verbal System’. In Grammaticalization in Semitic, edited by See the exploratory study of Thompson and Lyle (2019). Domenyk Eades, 146–63. Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement Series 29. Oxford: Oxford University Press. find
  3. ———. 2014. ‘Language Complexity: An Insight from Complex-System Theory’. International Journal of Language and Linguistics 2 (2): 74–89. find
  4. ———. 2019. ‘Categorial Gradience and Fuzziness—The QWM Gram (Serial Verb Construction) in Biblical Hebrew’. In Ancient Text and Modern Readers: Studies in Ancient Hebrew Linguistics and Bible Translation, edited by Gideon R. Kotzé, Christian S. Locatell, and Jack A. Messarra, 100–26. Studia Semitica Neerlandica 71. Leiden: Brill. find
  5. Basson, Alec. 2006. Divine Metaphor in Selected Hebrew Psalms of Lamentation. Forschungen zum Alten Testament II/15. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. find
  6. Bergen, Benjamin. 2015. ‘Embodiment’. In Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, edited by Ewa Dąbrowska and Dagmar Divjak, 10–30. Handbook of Linguistics and Communicative Science 39. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. find
  7. Bivin, William E. 2017. ‘The Particle ם א and Conditionality in Biblical Hebrew Revisited: A Cognitive Linguistic Account’. PhD dissertation, Stellenbosch University. find
  8. ———. 2018. ‘Building Spaces: Reevaluating the Particle ם א’. Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 44 (2): 1–21. find
  9. Bosman, Tiana. 2011. ‘Biblical Hebrew Lexicology and Cognitive Semantics: A Study of Lexemes of Affection’. PhD dissertation, Stellenbosch University. find
  10. Burton, Marilyn E. 2017. The Semantics of Glory: A Cognitive Corpus-Based Approach to Hebrew Word Meaning. Studia Semitica Neerlandica 98. Leiden: Brill. find
  11. Bybee, Joan L., Revere Perkins, and William Pagliuca. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. find
  12. Chau, Kevin D. 2011. ‘A Poetics for Metaphor in Biblical Hebrew Poetry’. PhD dissertation, University of Wisconsin at Madison. find
  13. ———. 2014. ‘Metaphor’s Forgotten Brother: A Survey of Metonymy in Biblical Hebrew Poetry’. Journal for Semitics 23 (2): 633–52. find
  14. ———. 2015. ‘Interpreting Biblical Metaphors: Introducing the Invariance Principle’. Vetus Testamentum 65: 377–89. find
  15. Claassen, Walter T. 1983. ‘Speaker-oriented Functions of kî in Biblical Hebrew’. Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 11: 29–46. find
  16. Coleman, Stephen. 2018. The Biblical Hebrew Transitivity Alternation in Cognitive Linguistic Perspective. Abhandelungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 114. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ↗
  17. Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. find
  18. Croft, William, and D. Allen Cruse. 2004. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. find
  19. Dąbrowska, Ewa. 2016. ‘Cognitive Linguistic Seven Deadly Sins’. Cognitive Linguistics 27 (4): 479–91. find
  20. Dąbrowska, Ewa, and Dagmar Divjak (eds). 2015. Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Handbook of Linguistics and Communicative Science 39. Berlin: De Gruyter, Mouton. find
  21. Dancygier, Barbara (ed.). 2017. The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. find
  22. Dancygier, Barbara, and Eve Sweetser. 2005. Mental Spaces in Grammar: Conditional Constructions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. find
  23. De Blois, Reinier. 2000. ‘Towards a New Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew Based on Semantic Domains’. PhD dissertation, Free University, Amsterdam. ↗
  24. ———. 2002. ‘A Semantic Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew’. In Current Trends in Scripture Translation, edited by Phil A. Noss, 275–95. Ann Arbor, MI: United Bible Societies. find
  25. ———. 2004. ‘Lexicography and Cognitive Linguistics: Hebrew Metaphors from a Cognitive Perspective’. Davar Logos 3 (2): 97–116. find
  26. ———. 2007. ‘Word Classes in Biblical Hebrew: A Cognitive Approach’. Paper Read at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, 17–20 November, San Diego. find
  27. ———. 2009. ‘The Semantic Structure of Biblical Hebrew’. Paper Read at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, 21–24 November, New Orleans. find
  28. ———. 2014. ‘Where Syntax and Semantics Intersect: The Story of חלש’. In Reflections on Lexicography: Explorations in Ancient Syriac, Hebrew, and Greek Sources, edited by Richer A. Taylor and Craig E. Morrison, 115–24. Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages 4. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press. find
  29. ———. 2019. ‘Biblical Lexicography and the Semantic Structure of the Target Language: The Case of ךְ א’. ַׁ In Ancient Text and Modern Readers: Studies in Ancient Hebrew Linguistics and Bible Translation, edited by Gideon R. Kotzé, Christian S. Locatell, and Jack A. Messarra, 165–79. Studia Semitica Neerlandica 71. Leiden: Brill. find
  30. De Joode, Johan. 2018. Metaphorical Landscapes and the Theology of the Book of Job: An Analysis of Job’s Spatial Metaphors. Vetus Testamentum, Supplements 179. Leiden: Brill. ↗
  31. De Joode, Johan, and Hanneke van Loon. 2014. ‘Selecting and Analyzing Metaphors in the Hebrew Bible: Cognitive Linguistics and the Literary’. In Approaches to Literary Readings of Ancient Jewish Writings, edited by Klaas Smelik and Karolien Vermeulen, 39–76. Studia Semitica Neerlandica 62. Leiden: Brill. ↗
  32. De Prenter, Janneke A. 2012. ‘The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of םרח in the Book of Joshua: A Cognitive Linguistic Approach’. In The Book of Joshua, edited by Ed Noord, 473– find
  33. Dirven, René. 2005. ‘Major Strands in Cognitive Linguistics’. In Cognitive Linguistics: Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction, edited by Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez and M. Sandra Peña Cervel, 17–68. Cognitive Linguistics Research 32. Berlin: De Gruyter. ↗
  34. Divjak, Dagmar, Natalia Levshina, and Jane Klavan. 2016. ‘Cognitive Linguistics: Looking Back, Looking Forward’. Cognitive Linguistics 27 (4): 447–63. ↗
  35. Evans, Vyvyan. 2009. How Words Mean: Lexical Concepts, Cognitive Models, and Meaning Construction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. find
  36. ———. 2012. ‘Cognitive Linguistics’. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science 3 (2): 129–41. find
  37. ———. 2019. Cognitive Linguistics: A Complete Guide. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. find
  38. Falkum, Ingrid L., and Augustin Vicente. 2015. ‘Polysemy: Current Perspective and Approaches’. Lingua 157: 1–16. find
  39. Fauconnier, Gilles. 1997. Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridge: University Press. ↗
  40. Fauconnier, Gilles, and Mark Turner. 2002. The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books. find
  41. Follingstad, Carl M. 2001. Deictic Viewpoint in Biblical Hebrew Text: A Syntagmatic and Paradigmatic Analysis of the Particle י כ ִּ (kî). Special Issue of Journal of Text and Translation. Dallas, TX: SIL. find
  42. Geeraerts, Dirk. 1997. Diachronic Prototype Semantics. A Contribution to Historical Lexicology. Oxford: Clarendon. ↗
  43. ———. 2010. Theories of Lexical Semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. find
  44. ———. 2015. ‘Lexical Semantics’. In Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, edited by Ewa Dąbrowska and Dagmar Divjak, 273–95. Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science 39. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. find
  45. ———. 2016a. ‘The Sociosemiotic Commitment’. Cognitive Linguistics 27 (4): 527–42. find
  46. ———. 2016b. ‘Sense Individuation’. In The Routledge Handbook of Semantics, edited by Nick Riemer, 233–47. London: Routledge. find
  47. _________. 2017. Conceptual Structure and Conceptual Variation. Cognitive Linguistics Classic Papers Series. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press. find
  48. Geeraerts, Dirk, and Herbert Cuyckens (eds). 2007. The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press. find
  49. Glynn, Dylan, and Kerstin Fischer (eds). 2010. Quantitative Methods in Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-Driven Approaches. Cognitive Linguistic Research 46. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. ↗
  50. Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. find
  51. Gries, Stefan Th. 2015. ‘Polysemy’. In Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, edited by Ewa Dąbrowska and Dagmar Divjak, 472–90. Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science 39. Berlin: De Gruyton Mouton. find
  52. Gries, Stefan Th., and Anatol Stefanowitsch. 2006. Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-Based Approaches to Syntax and Lexis. Berlin: De Gruyter. find
  53. Hanks, Patrick. 2013. Lexical Analysis: Norms and Exploitation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. find
  54. Hardy, Humphrey H. 2014. ‘Diachronic Development in Biblical Hebrew Prepositions: A Case Study in Grammaticalization’. PhD dissertation, University of Chicago. find
  55. Heine, Bernd, Ulrike Claudi, and Friederike Hünnemeyer. 1991. Grammaticalization: A Conceptual Framework. Chicago: University of Chicago. find
  56. Hilpert, Martin. 2015. ‘Historical Linguistics’. In Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, edited by Ewa Dąbrowska and Dagmar Divjak, 346–65. Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science 39. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. find
  57. Hoffmann, Thomas. 2017. ‘From Constructions to Construction Grammars’. In The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, edited by Barbara Dancygier, 310–29. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ↗
  58. Hoffmann, Thomas, and Graeme Trousdale. 2013. The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. find
  59. Hopper, Paul J., and Elizabeth C. Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. find
  60. Howe, Bonnie, and Joel B. Green (eds). 2014. Cognitive Linguistic Explorations in Biblical Studies. Berlin: De Gruyter. find
  61. Janda, Laura A. 2013. ‘Quantitative Methods in Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction’. In Cognitive Linguistics: The Quantitative Turn: The Essential Reader, edited by Laura A Janda, 1–32. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. ↗
  62. Jindo, Job Y. 2010. Biblical Metaphor Reconsidered: A Cognitive Approach to Poetic Prophecy in Jeremiah 1–24. Harvard Semitic Monographs 64. Leiden: Brill. find
  63. Kamp, Albert. 2004. Inner Worlds: A Cognitive-Linguistic Approach to the Book of Jonah. Biblical Interpretation Series 68. Leiden: Brill. find
  64. Kay, Paul, and Charles J Fillmore. 1999. ‘Grammatical Constructions and Linguistic Generalizations: The What’s X Doing Y? Construction’. Language 75 (1): 1–33. ↗
  65. Khan, Geoffrey A., and Christo H. J. Van der Merwe. 2020. ‘Towards a Comprehensive Model for Interpreting Word Order in Classical Biblical Hebrew. Journal of Semitic Studies 65 (2): 347–90. ↗ our card
  66. Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria. 2015. ‘Semantic Typology’. In Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, edited by Ewa Dąbrowska and Dagmar Divjak, 453–72. Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Sciences 39. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. find
  67. Kotzé, Zacharias. 2004. ‘A Cognitive Linguistic Approach to the Emotion of Anger in the Old Testament’. HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 60 (3): 843–63. ↗
  68. ———. 2005. ‘A Cognitive Linguistic Methodology for the Study of Metaphor in the Hebrew Bible’. Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 31 (1): 107–17. find
  69. Kövecses, Zoltán. 2008. ‘Conceptual Metaphor Theory: Some Criticisms and Alternative Proposals’. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 6: 168–84. find
  70. Kraska-Szlenk, Iwona. 2014. ‘Semantic Extensions of Body Part Terms: Common Patterns and Their Interpretation’. Language Sciences 44: 15–39. doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2014.02.002 ↗
  71. _________. 2020. Body Part Terms in Conceptualization and Language Use. Cognitive Linguistic Studies in Cultural Contexts 12. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. find
  72. Kuryłowicz, Jerzy. 1975 [1965]. ‘The Evolution of Grammatical Categories’. Esquisses linguistiques 2: 38–54. find
  73. Kruger, Paul A. 2000. ‘A Cognitive Interpretation of the Emotion of Anger in the Hebrew Bible’. Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 26: 155–62. find
  74. Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago. find
  75. Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. find
  76. Lakoff, George, and Mark Turner. 1989. More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. find
  77. Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Vol. I. Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. find
  78. ———. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol II. Descriptive Application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. find
  79. ———. 2013. Essentials of Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. find
  80. ———. 2016. ‘Working Towards a Synthesis’. Cognitive Linguistics 27 (4): 465–77. find
  81. ———. 2017. ‘Cognitive Grammar’. In The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, edited by Barbara Dancygier, 262– find
  82. Lamprecht, At. 2015. ‘Spatial Cognition and the Death Metaphor in the Hebrew Bible’. PhD dissertation, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein. find
  83. Lee, Yo-Seob. 2016. ‘Description of the Biblical Hebrew Lexeme ל א: ֶ A Cognitive Approach’. MA thesis, Stellenbosch University. find
  84. Lemmer, Lisa. 2014. ‘The Polysemic Nature of the of the Preposition ן מ (min) in Biblical Hebrew: A Study in the Book of Judges’. MA thesis, North-West University, Potchefstroom. find
  85. Leong, Chin Hei. 2019. ‘Completeness – Balance: Revisiting the Biblical Hebrew Verb םלש from the Perspective of Cognitive Semantics’. PhD dissertation, KU Leuven. find
  86. Locatell, Christian S. 2017. ‘Grammatical Polysemy in the Hebrew Bible: A Cognitive Linguistic Approach to kî’. PhD dissertation, Stellenbosch University. find
  87. ———. 2019. ‘Causal Relationships Communicated with יֹ כ: A Cognitively Oriented Analysis’. Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 45 (2): 79–102. find
  88. Lyle, Kristopher A. 2012. ‘A Cognitive Semantic Assessment of ם ע and ת א’s ֵּ Semantic Potential’. MA thesis, Stellenbosch University. find
  89. ———. 2013. ‘A New Methodology for Ascertaining the Semantic Potential of Biblical Hebrew Prepositions’. Hebrew Studies 54 (1): 49–67. find
  90. Martin, Willy. 1994. ‘Knowledge-Representation Schemata and Dictionary Definitions’. In Perspectives on English, edited by Keith Carlon, Kristin Davidse, Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn, and Emma Vorlat, 237–56. Orbis 2. Leuven: Peeters. find
  91. Mena, Andrea K. 2012. ‘The Semantic Potential of ל ע ַׁ in Genesis, Psalms, and Chronicles’. MA thesis, Stellenbosch University. find
  92. Miller-Naudé, Cynthia L., and Christo H. J. van der Merwe. 2011. ‘ה ֵּנ ה and Mirativity in Biblical Hebrew’. Hebrew Studies 52 (1): 53–81. find
  93. Müller, Katrin. 2018. Lobe den Herrn Meine “Seele”: Eine Kognitiv-Linguistische Studie zur Nӕfӕš des Menschen im Alten Testament. Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament 215. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. find
  94. Murphy, Gregory L. 2002. The Big Book Concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. find
  95. Narrog, Heiko, and Bernd Heine (eds). 2011. The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ↗
  96. Peters, Kurtis. 2016. Hebrew Lexical Semantics and Daily Life in Ancient Israel: What’s Cooking in Biblical Hebrew. Biblical Interpretation Series 146. Leiden: Brill. ↗
  97. Rechenmacher, Hans. 2004. ‘Kognitive Linguistik und al-thebräische Lexikographie’. Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 30 (2): 43–59. find
  98. Riemer, Nick. 2010. Introducing Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. find
  99. Robar, Elizabeth. 2014. The Verb and the Paragraph in Biblical Hebrew: A Cognitive-Linguistic Approach. Studies in Semitic Studies Languages and Linguistics 78. Leiden: Brill. ↗
  100. Rodriguez, Daniel. 2017. ‘The Biblical Hebrew Prepositions taḥat, ʻal, ʼaḥar and lifnê/mifnê: A Cognitive Linguistic Account’. PhD dissertation, Stellenbosch University. find
  101. Ruark, Joel. 2019. ‘Toward an Old Testament Theology of Light: From Physical Concept to Metaphysical Analogy’. PhD dissertation, Stellenbosch University. find
  102. Sanders, Ted, and Eve Sweetser (eds). 2009. Causal Categories in Discourse and Cognition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. find
  103. Shead, Stephen L. 2011. Radical Frame Semantics and Biblical Hebrew: Exploring Lexical Semantics. Biblical Interpretation Series 108. Leiden: Brill. find
  104. Taylor, John R. 2002. Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. find
  105. ———. 2003. Linguistic Categorization. 3rd edition. New York: Oxford University Press. find
  106. ———. 2015. ‘Prototypes Effects in Grammar’. In Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, edited by Ewa Dąbrowska and Dagmar Divjak, 562–79. Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Sciences 39. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. find
  107. Taylor, John R., and Jeannette Littlemore. 2014. The Bloomsbury Companion to Cognitive Linguistics. London: Bloomsbury. find
  108. Thompson, Jeremy and Kristopher A. Lyle. 2019. ‘A Behavioral Profile Analysis of Biblical Hebrew דקפ: Quantitative Explorations of Polysemy’. In Ancient Text and Modern Readers: Studies in Ancient Hebrew Linguistics and Bible Translation, edited by Gideon R. Kotzé, Christian S. Locatell and Jack A. Messarra, 127–48. Studia Semitica Neerlandica 71. Leiden: Brill. find
  109. Traugott, Elizabeth C., and Richard B. Dasher. 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 97. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ↗
  110. Turner, Mark. 1996. The Literary Mind: The Origins of Thought and Language. New York: Oxford University Press. find
  111. Tyler, Andrea, and Vyvyan Evans. 2003. The Semantics of English Prepositions: Spatial Scenes, Embodied Meaning and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. find
  112. Van der Merwe, Christo H. J. 2003. ‘Some Recent Trends in Biblical Hebrew Linguistics: A Few Pointers towards a More Comprehensive Model of Language Use’. Hebrew Studies 44: 7–24. ↗
  113. ———. 2006a. ‘Biblical Hebrew Lexicology: A Cognitive Linguistic Perspective’. KUSATU 6: 87–112. find
  114. ———. 2006b. ‘Lexical Meaning in Biblical Hebrew and Cognitive Semantics: A Case Study’. Biblica 87 (1): 85–95. find
  115. ———. 2006c. ‘Biblical Exegesis, Cognitive Linguistics and Hypertext’. In Congress Volume Leiden 2004, edited by André Lemaire, 255–80. Supplement to Vetus Testamentum 109. Leiden: Brill. find
  116. ———. 2007. ‘A Cognitive Linguistic Perspective on ה ֵּנ ה in the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges and Ruth’. Hebrew Studies 47: 238–77. find
  117. ———. 2009a. ‘The Biblical Hebrew Particle ף א’. ַׁ Vetus Testamentum 59: 266–83. find
  118. ———. 2009b. ‘Another Look at the Biblical Hebrew Focus Particle ם ַׁג’. Journal of Semitic Studies 54 (2): 313–32. find
  119. ———. 2010. ‘Hebrew Linguistics as Corpus Linguistics’. In Computer Assisted Research on the Bible in the 21st Century, edited by L. Vegas Montaner, G. Seijas de los Ríos-Zarzosa, and J. del Barco, 135–58. Bible in Technology 5. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press. find
  120. ———. 2011. ‘The Difference between ן ה, ֵּ ה ֵּנ ה and ה א ֵּ ר’. In “Ich Werde Meinen Bund mit Euch Niemals Brechen!” (Ri 2,1): Festschrift für Walter Gross Zum 70. Geburtstag, edited by Erasmus Gass and Herman-Josef Stipp, 237–56. Freiburg: Herder. find
  121. ———. 2014. ‘The Challenge of Better Understanding Discourse Particles: The Case of ן כ ֵּ ל’. ָ Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 40 (2): 127–57. find
  122. ———. 2018a. ‘The Polysemous Relationships between the Senses of the Verbal Root קזח’. Biblica 99 (2): 1–23. find
  123. ———. 2018b. ‘Review of Burton, Marilyn E. 2017. The Semantics of Glory: A Cognitive, Corpus-Based Approach to Hebrew Word Meaning (Studia Semitica Neerlandica 68)’. Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 44 (1): 89–93. find
  124. ———. 2019a. ‘Review of Coleman, Stephen. 2018. The Biblical Hebrew Transitivity Alternation in Cognitive Linguistic Perspective (Abhandelungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 114)’. Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 45 (2): 121–28. find
  125. ———. 2019b. ‘Review of Müller, Katrin. 2018. Lobe den Herrn Meine “Seele”. Eine Kognitiv-Linguistische Studie zur Nӕfӕš des Menschen im Alten Testament (Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament 215)’. Theologische Revue 115 (6): 470. find
  126. Van der Merwe, Christo H. J., and Izak Cornelius. 2019. ‘A Profile of ד ָיֹ in the Book of Jeremiah: A Perspective from Lexical Typology and Material Culture’. In Jeremia, Deuterono-mismus und Priesterschrift: Beiträge zur Literatur- und Theologie-Geschichte des alten Testaments—Festschrift für Hermann-Josef Stipp zum 65. Geburtstag, edited by Andreas Michael and Nicolene K. Rüttgers, 279–304. Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache im Alten Testament 105. St. Ottilien: EOS. Van der Merwe, Christo H. J., Jacobus A. Naudé, and Jan H. find
  127. Kroeze. 2017. A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar. 2nd edition. London: Bloomsbury. find
  128. Van Hecke, Pierre J. P. 2001a. ‘Polysemy or Homonymy in the Root(s) r‘h in Biblical Hebrew: A Cognitive Linguistic Approach’. Zeitschrift für Althebräistik 14: 50–67. find
  129. ———. 2001b. ‘Shepherds and Linguistics: A Cognitive Linguistic Approach to the Metaphor “God is Shepherd” in Gen 48:15 and Context’. In Studies in the Book of Genesis: Literature, Redaction and History, edited by André Wénin, 479–95. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 155. Leuven: Peters. find
  130. ———. 2003a. ‘Searching for and Exploring Wisdom: A Cognitive Semantic Approach to the Hebrew Verb haqar in Job 28’. In Job 28: Cognition in Context, edited by Ellen J. Van Wolde, 139–62. Biblical Interpretation Series 64. Leiden: Brill. find
  131. ———. 2003b. ‘Living Alone in the Shrubs: Positive Pastoral Metaphors in Micah 7:14’. Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 115: 362–75. find
  132. ——— (ed.). 2005a. Metaphor in the Hebrew Bible. Biblotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 187. Leuven: Peeters. find
  133. ———. 2005b. ‘Conceptual Blending: A Recent Approach to Metaphor’. In Metaphor in the Hebrew Bible, edited by Pierre J. P. Van Hecke, 215–31. Biblotheca Ephemeridum Theologi-carum Lovaniensium 187. Leuven: Peeters. find
  134. ———. 2007. ‘The Verbs האר and עמש in the Book of Qohelet: A Cognitive Semantic Perspective’. In The Language of Qohelet in Its Contexts: Essays in Honour of Prof. A. Schoors on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, edited by Angelika Ber-jelung and Pierre J. P. Van Hecke, 302–20. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 164. Leuven: Peeters. find
  135. ———. 2011. From Linguistics to Hermeneutics: A Functional and Cognitive Approach to Job 12–14. Studia Semitica Neerlandica 55. Leiden: Brill. find
  136. Van Hecke, Pierre J. P., and Antje Labahn (eds). 2010. Metaphors in the Psalms. Biblotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 231. Leuven: Peeters. find
  137. Van Loon, Hanneke. 2018. Metaphors in the Discussion on Suffering in Job 3–31. Visions of Hope and Consolation. Biblical Interpretation Series 165. Leiden: Brill. ↗
  138. Van Steenbergen, Gerrit J. 2002. ‘Componential Analysis of Meaning and Cognitive Linguistics: Some Prospects for Biblical Hebrew Lexicology (Part 1)’. Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 28: 19–38. find
  139. ———. 2003. ‘Componential Analysis of Meaning and Cognitive Linguistics: Some Prospects for Biblical Hebrew Lexicology (Part 2)’. Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 29 (2): 109–26. find
  140. ———. 2005. Semantics, World View and Bible Translation: An Integrated Analysis of a Selection of Hebrew Lexical Items Referring to Negative Moral Behavior in the Book of Isaiah. Stellenbosch: SUN Press. find
  141. Van Wolde, Ellen J. 2008. ‘Sentiments as Culturally Constructed Emotions: Anger and Love in the Hebrew Bible’. Biblical Interpretation: A Journal of Contemporary Approaches 16 (1): 1–24. ↗
  142. ———. 2009. Reframing Biblical Studies: When Language and Text Meet Culture, Cognition, and Context. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. find
  143. ———. 2013a. ‘One Bow or Another? A Study of the Bow in Genesis 9:8–17’. Vetus Testamentum 63 (1): 124–49. find
  144. ———. 2013b. ‘Cognitive Linguistics: A Cognitive Linguistic Study of the Concept of Defilement in Ezekiel 22:1–16’. In Biblical Interpretation and Method: Essays in Honour of John Barton, edited by Katharine J. Dell and Paul M. Joyce, 257– find
  145. ———. 2014. ‘Cognitive Grammar at Work in Sodom and Gomorrah’. In Cognitive Linguistic Explorations in Biblical Studies, edited by Bonnie Howe and Joel B. Green, 193–221. Berlin: De Gruyter. find
  146. ———. 2015. ‘The God Ezekiel 1 Envisions’. In The God Ezekiel Creates, edited by Paul M. Joyce and Dalit Rom-Shiloni, 87– 106. London: Bloomsbury. find
  147. ———. 2017. ‘Separation and Creation in Genesis 1 and Psalm 104, a Continuation of the Discussion of the Verb ארב’. Vetus Testamentum 67: 611–47. find
  148. ———. 2019. ‘The Niphal as Middle Voice and Its Consequence for Meaning’. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 43 (3): 453–79. find
  149. Van Wolde, Ellen J., and Robert Rezetko. 2011. ‘Semantics and the Semantics of ארב: A Rejoinder to the Arguments Advanced by B. Becking and M. Korpel’. Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 11 Article 9. doi.org/10.5508/jhs.2011.v11.a9. ↗
  150. Verhagen, Arie. 2005. Constructions of Intersubjectivity: Discourse, Syntax, and Cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. find
  151. Wardlaw, Terrance, W., Jr. 2014. ‘The Meaning of ארב in Genesis 1:1–2:3’. Vetus Testamentum 64: 502–13. find
  152. Widder, Wendy L. 2014. “To Teach” in Ancient Israel: A Cognitive Linguistic Study of a Biblical Hebrew Lexical Set. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 456. Berlin: De Gruyter. find
  153. Yoo, Chang-Keol. 2013. ‘A Cognitive Linguistic Description of Purpose and Result Connectives in Biblical Hebrew’. PhD dissertation, Stellenbosch University. FROM חוּל ַ TO ר פ ֶ ס ֵ AND BACK: AN EPISODE IN BIBLICAL HEBREW HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS 1 Tania Notarius The Classical Biblical Hebrew (CBH) word ר פ ֶ ס ֵ ‘letter, written document’ and its Late Biblical Hebrew (LBH) counterparts ת ִ ר ֶ ִֶגּ א ִ and ב ת ְָ כ ִ are well-known chapters in the historical study of the Hebrew language: the CBH term was partially replaced by new terms, due to the interference of Aramaic, but continued in the usage ‘book, scroll, writing’. 2 Most of the research for this paper was accomplished while I was the Experienced Research Fellow at the Martin-Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, generously supported by the Humboldt Stiftung. I want to thank the organisers of the conference Biblical and Rabbinic Hebrew: New Perspectives in Philology and Linguistics for inviting me and the participants for interesting comments and discussion. find
  154. See Hurvitz et al. (2014, 26–27, 149, 194) and the bibliography there; Hendel and Joosten (2018, 20–21). For ִר פ ֶ ס ֵ as ‘letter’ in LBH cf. 2 Chron. 32.17; Est. 1.22; 3.13; 8.5, 10; 9.20, 25, 30; see Hendel and Joosten (2018, 150 n. 51). The translation ‘book’ does not imply ‘codex’, but rather ‘a long, apparently literary, composition’, transmitted on any physical carrier; see the discussion in Naudé and Miller-Naudé (2016). find
  155. © 2021 Tania Notarius, CC BY 4.0 Examination of the Ugaritic corpus shows that the ancient Northwest Semitic (NWS) lexeme *spr was not always the default term for a written document: 3 it gained its position gradually, contending with other terms for ‘writing’, the word *lwḥ ‘tablet, letter’ the most important among them. The goal of this paper is to demonstrate the relevance of the Ugaritic data for the historical study of Hebrew—particularly of Hebrew lexical items—and to trace the semantic development of the noun *lwḥ from Ugarit to Qumran Hebrew (QH), comparing when necessary with the master-term *spr and other terms for writing. 4 find
  156. This research was finalised before Philip Zhakevich’s (2015) dissertation became known to me; I could not fully accommodate the results of his study (especially pp. 125–33) in the present paper. See DULAT (756–57); it distinguishes between four main functions of spr II: (1) “tablet / register, list, inventory; in accounting, record of tribute; of instructions”; (2) “writing, document, warrant”; (3) “letter, missive”; (4) archival note of “reference, matter”. find
  157. Hawley, Pardee, and Roche-Hawley (2015, 252) derive this noun from the root s-p-r ‘count’ and observe (note 64): From חוּל ַ to ַר פ ֶ ס ֵ and Back (1a) ḫpṯ d bl spr ṯnn d bl hg ‘mercenaries without number, archers without count’ (1.14 II 37–38, and parallels) (1b) b py sprhn b špty mnthm ‘in my mouth (I have) their inventory, on my lips (is) their list’ (1.24:45–46). In my view, there is no need to draw such a distinction, since the spr II used about ‘writing’ also has many usages connected to ‘counting, registering, and listing’, as in (2a)–(2b), clearly motivated by the root s-p-r, commonly for the sake of ‘accounting’, e.g., (2c): (2a) spr npš d ˁrb bt mlk w b spr l št yrmˁl 3 ṣry 2… ‘record of the individuals who entered the house of the king, but who had not been put in a record: PN—3, PN— 2…’ (4.338:1–6). 6 (2b) spr bnš mlk d tảršn ˁmsn bṣr ảbn špšyn ‘register of the personnel of the king who claim the cargo: PN, PN, PN’ (4.370:1–3). 7 Its morphological structure was probably /sipru/. The word /sipru/ appears in various literary genres in reference to the inscribed tablet itself, e.g., spr ḥpr ‘document of rations’ (RS 17.106), or spr dbḥ ẓlm ‘document of sacrifices of the shades’ (RS 34.126, a funerary ritual). It is clear that, as spr + X defines the type of document, spr + PN defines who put the document into writing. All Ugaritic examples in this paper are according to CAT/KTU. See also 4.33:1; 4.288:1; 4.320:1; 4.322:1; 4.561:1; 4.714:1. Cf. 4.141 I 1; 4.144:1; 4.367:1; 4.609:1; + many. (2c) spr ḥṯbn sbrdnm ḫmš[[x]] kkrm ảlp[[x]] kbd ṯlṯ ‘account book of the bronze-smiths: five talents, one thousand (shekels) of copper’ (4.337:1–3). 8 Apparently, due to interference of the Akkadian lexeme šipru/ šipirtu ‘message, instruction’, 9 spr acquired the meanings ‘document, instruction’, e.g., (3a)–(3b), ‘matter, document’, e.g., (3c), and ‘warrant, license’, e.g., (3d): (3a) spr nˁm śśwm ‘(book of) instructions about the health of horses’ (1.85:1) (3b) spr dbḥ ẓlm ‘(record of) instructions for the sacrifice of the spirits’ (1.161:1) (3c) spr šảb mq[dšt] ‘document concerning the water carriers of the sanctuary’ (6.25:1) 10 (3d) spr mlk ‘royal warrant’ (3.12:13; see also 3.12:9) Ugaritic had only one substantive spr: in poetry it is used twice for ‘number, inventory’; in prose it is used in administrative See also 4.181:1; 4.369:1; 4.610 I 1; etc. The semantic link ‘count– recount = tell’ (cf. bank teller) / Zahl–erzählen, etc., is widely attested crosslinguistically. The interference of the Akkadian lexeme šipru/ šipirtu ‘message, instruction; commission, report, task’; cf. CAD (Š 3: 73–84), presumably an early loan, indeed led to convergence with the Northwest Semitic derivative *sipru; cf. the discussion in Notarius (forthcoming). See also 4.120:1; 6.24:1; 6.29:1; etc. From חוּל ַ to ַר פ ֶ ס ֵ and Back and procedural discourse dozens of times (approx. 80 occurrences), meaning both ‘list, record, register, account, document, inventory’ and ‘matter, instruction’. The lexeme that intersects semantically with spr ‘written document’ is lḥt ‘tablet-letter, message’. 11 On the surface, lḥt and spr demonstrate different distributions: if spr is used in administrative and procedural texts, lḥt is attested in correspondence; see ex. (4). I have counted up to 19 cases of lḥt referring to the content of a letter, i.e., ‘message from / about’, as in (4a), or to the ‘tablet-letter’ itself, i.e., ‘letter concerning’, as in (4b). In poetry there is one usage of lḥt ‘tablet(s)’, phrased with mlảk ‘message’ (4c): (4a) lḥt šlm d lỉkt ‘message of greeting that (she) sent’ (2.34:5–6) 12 (4b) w lḥt bt mlk ảmr ‘and the letter (about) the daughter of the king of TN’ (2.72:17) 13 (4c) lḥt mlảk ym ‘the letter-message of DN’ (1.2 I 26) Although most usages of spr ‘written record’ are in procedural, economic, and administrative texts, occasionally (five times) spr occurs in correspondence with the meaning ‘writing’ See DULAT (490). According to Fox (2003, 76), lḥ is an isolated Proto-Semitic nominal lexeme. See also 2.39:17; 2.45:22–23; 2.46:10; 2.73:7, 12. See also 2.31:43; 2.72:23; 2.87:18; 2.90:4; 2.98:31; 2.100:14, 16; 2.103:11, 12, 17; 2.104:11. (5a), occasionally overlapping with lḥt in the meaning ‘message’, as in (5b)–(5c), although the lexeme lḥt ‘message’ also overlaps with mlảk(t); cf. exs. (5c)–(5d). In one case both words are grouped together as the phrase lḥt spr ‘the tablet-letter of a message’, an equivalent of the poetic lḥt mlảk; compare (5e) with (4c) above: (5a) b spr štnn ‘put it in writing’ (2.108:14) 14 (5b) k ytnt spr hnd ˁmk ‘when I gave this message (to be delivered) to you’ (2.88:5) (5c) lḥt qnỉm d lik[t . bt . m]lk ‘the message concerning lapis lazuli that the daughter of the king has sent’ (2.73:7) (5d) [w] mlảktk ʕmy l likt ‘and your message to me you did not send’ (2.36:11) (5e) ỉky lḥt spr d lỉkt ‘what about the message tablet that I sent?’ (2.14:6–7) Ugaritic spr also corresponds to Akkadian ṭuppu in the meaning of ‘register, writing’; cf. (6a)–(6b) for parallel cases in Ugaritic and in the Akkadian of Ugarit: (6a) spr ảrgmn špšַ ‘record of the tribute(s) to the Sun [= Hittite king]’ (4.610 I 1) || [ṭup-pu an-nu-ú] ša ַ ma-an-da[-at DINGIR.]UTU-ši (PRU 4 47 [RS 11.732]:1) (6b) št b spr ˁmy See also 2.10:19 (cf. 1.179:43 broken); cf. w ảt lḥt rgm[ “and you pronounce the letter” (2.73:12). From חוּל ַ to ַר פ ֶ ס ֵ and Back ‘put into writing for me’ (2.10:19) || i-na ṭup-pí šu-uk-un-ni (PRU 6 18 [RS 19:53]:12) The summary chart shows that Ugaritic lḥt is a technical word for ‘tablet-letter, message’, used once in poetry and many times in correspondence (18 times), while spr is a term for ‘counting’ in poetry (twice) and for both ‘list, inventory’ and ‘instruction, document’ in administrative and procedural discourse (about 80 times). The lexeme spr makes its first steps into the genre of correspondence in the meaning ‘writing; letter-message’ (five cases are attested), extending its functions at the expense of lḥt. Seen within the broader NWS context, Ugaritic attests the very beginning of the process: Table 1 administrative, poetry letters lḥt ‘tablet’ ‘tablet-letter, message’ ≈ 87 ≈ 80 spr ‘counting’ ‘writing, message’ ‘list, inventory; procedural discourse — instruction, document’ 2.0. ח ַ וּ ַ ל ַ in Biblical Hebrew In BH there are 191 cases of ר פ ֶ ס, ֵ referring to some kind of written document—‘inscription, letter, written document, record, book’; 15 in CBH it is a default term for ‘letter, message’, in clear contrast to Ugaritic: (7a) ל ִ א ֵ֑ ֵ ר ְָ שׂ י ִ ַ ךְ ל ֶ מ־ל ֶ֣ ֶ א ֶ ַ ר פ ֶ ס ֵ ַ ה ח ָ֥ ְָ ל שׁ א ִֶ ו ‘so that I may send a letter to the king of Israel’ (2 Kgs 5.5 + many) (7b) מ ִ [ רשה ַ ירפס ַ] תאו [ ַ כ ִ למה ַ ר ] פס ַ ת [ א ִ ַ ינדא · חלש · יכ ‘that my lord sent (him) th[e] king’s [lett]er and the officials’ letter[s’ (Lachish 6.3–4) In Hebrew epigraphy there are up to 19 cases of ר פ ֶ ס ֵ ‘letter’ in the correspondence from Lachish; cf. example (7b); 16 the word חוּל ַ does not seem to be attested at all in Hebrew epigraphy. 17 See HALOT (766–67): the lexeme is used about 142 times in CBH and Transitional Biblical Hebrew (TBH) and 49 time in explicitly late books. Other terms in CBH include: ןוֹי ְִָלּ גּ ‘tablet’ (Isa. 3.23; 8.1); cf. find
  158. Williamson (2011), ה ְִָלּ ִ ג מ ַ ‘scroll’ used mainly in TBH (in Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Zechariah) and with symbolic meaning; cf. find
  159. Hurvitz (1996). The term ב תּ ְִָ ִ כ מּ ִ ‘writing’ is used nine times in both corpus parts and can also mean ‘letter’. The cases are counted with the help of the Accordance software; cf. also Aḥituv (2008, 498); Davies, Bockmuehl, and Lacey (1991, 450–51; 2004, 202); Dobbs-Allsopp (2005, 715). In Deir-Alla I.1 the lexeme is used for the title of a long composition ]ם[ע]לב[ִרפס ‘the book of Bilʿam’. The lexeme חול is relatively rare in ancient Northwest Semitic epigraphy. In Imperial Aramaic the lexeme is attested three times, in quite broken contexts: twice in the same text as a product with measurements: ִיתפ 2 + 3 ןמא הרחא חול ]...ה[דוד ִ 1 ִהמאִיתפִגלפו 3 + 3 + 3 ןמא הרחא חול ִוגב ]. ..ִך [ שפִהדוד ִ 1 ]ִךשפ ִ 1 ִהמ[א ‘herein: another board, (length), nine cubits and a half; width, one cubit; thickne[ss, four handbreadths], another board, (length), five cubits; width, [one] cu[bit], one[ handbreadth]; thickness, [x] handbrea[dths]’ (TAD D3 26.3–4) and once apparently From חוּל ַ to ַר פ ֶ ס ֵ and Back ח ַ וּ ל ‘tablet, plank’ is used 43 times in the Bible—among them, just once in an explicit LBH composition, parallel to a classical usage: ex. (8a); cf. also another time in the poetic Song 8.9 in the meaning ‘plank’. The rest of the cases are in CBH, particularly in the Pentateuch and in poetry; this is an explicitly classical literary usage. Most of cases in Pentateuch (plus one in 1 Kgs 8.9) refer to the two ן ַ ב ֶ א ֶ ה ָ תֹח ל ֻ ‘stone tablets’, called ת ד ֻ ע ֵ ה ָ תֹח ל ֻ ‘tablets of testimony’ in Exodus and תי ר ִ בּ ַ ה ַ ַ תֹח וּ ל in Deuteronomy ‘tablets find

This page in Markdown → https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/hbobook-obp0250-hornkohl-new-perspectives-biblical-rabbinic-hebrew/