Jump to content

Question regarding the use of DCH


Emanuel Cardona

Recommended Posts

Just to use as an example, when I search עַלְמָה in the DCH, it takes me to volume 6, pages 428-429. There I see עַלְמָה I and עַלְמָה II. But then I see this: “” and when I click it, it takes me to volume 6, pages 885-886. I would like to know, what is exactly the information provided in pages 885-886? Are they additional definitions? Or do they just provide bibliography information for the definitions on pages 428-429? So if I were to use a gloss and or definition for עַלְמָה, what then should I use for my bible studies, those on pages 428-429, or those on pages 885-886, or both sections? Can someone provide me with some insight on the use of DCH? Thank you and God bless.

 

Emanuel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to use as an example, when I search עַלְמָה in the DCH, it takes me to volume 6, pages 428-429. There I see עַלְמָה I and עַלְמָה II. But then I see this: “” and when I click it, it takes me to volume 6, pages 885-886. I would like to know, what is exactly the information provided in pages 885-886? Are they additional definitions? Or do they just provide bibliography information for the definitions on pages 428-429? So if I were to use a gloss and or definition for עַלְמָה, what then should I use for my bible studies, those on pages 428-429, or those on pages 885-886, or both sections? Can someone provide me with some insight on the use of DCH? Thank you and God bless.

 

Emanuel

 

It is indeed bibliography information on the word in question and not additional definitions per se. "Discussions of the definitions for further study" is a more proper term, I'd say. As for what to refer to in footnotes, it depends on the situation at hand. An easy solution is to make references to the entry itself and the bibliography data.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is indeed bibliography information on the word in question and not additional definitions per se. "Discussions of the definitions for further study" is a more proper term, I'd say. As for what to refer to in footnotes, it depends on the situation at hand. An easy solution is to make references to the entry itself and the bibliography data.

Thank you so much for your help. When I saw that on page 885 a gloss of "court lady" was provided and checking it against the glosses provided on pages 428-429 where it does not list "court lady" as one of the glosses, that is where I started to question about which ones in particular are the glosses for the hebrew word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure thing - Happy to help! The bibliography references in the DCH is a great way to get started on doing some research on your own, too. I'd also recommend coupling it with searching for and analyzing cognates in other semitic languages, and see how the word is used in texts from the Ancient Near East. That's my main modus operandi, anyway.

 

Regarding עלמה = "Court Lady" I honestly find it to be a bit of a stretch (I haven't read the article by Engelken, though). No such meaning for this root is used in any other Semitic language, meaning that this interpretation is purely based on context - the title of her article seems to indicate so, too. The Ugaritic cognate ġlmt simply means a "a young unmarried woman". It can also serve as a divine title, but it is not used for designating court titles. The arabic root غلم can also mean "young boy/girl" and even "lust". There is no cognate in Akkadian, but they do have a term for court lady: sekretu.

Edited by Pchris
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure thing - Happy to help! The bibliography references in the DCH is a great way to get started on doing some research on your own, too. I'd also recommend coupling it with searching for and analyzing cognates in other semitic languages, and see how the word is used in texts from the Ancient Near East. That's my main modus operandi, anyway.

 

Regarding עלמה = "Court Lady" I honestly find it to be a bit of a stretch (I haven't read the article by Engelken, though). No such meaning for this root is used in any other Semitic language, meaning that this interpretation is purely based on context - the title of her article seems to indicate so, too. The Ugaritic cognate ġlmt simply means a "a young unmarried woman". It can also serve as a divine title, but it is not used for designating court titles. The arabic root غلم can also mean "young boy/girl" and even "lust". There is no cognate in Akkadian, but they do have a term for court lady: sekretu.

A very informative and edifying post. Thank you so much!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...