Enoch Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 Here is a sample preliminary entry (for a root) in HALOT: QUOTE נגע : MHeb. 1QM 7:4; 1QSa 23?5 pt. pu., cf. MHeb. מנגע leprous; EgArm, (Jean-H. Dictionnaire 174), JArm. to touch, Mnd. (Drower-M. Dictionary 288a) to strike, Eth. Leslau 33. UNQUOTE I tried reading the (very wordy) introduction to find out what the layout of HALOT was, but was unsuccessful. If you look above at the quotation you will see that these (following) meanings are listed (before HALOT starts in on the individual binyanim, qal, etc.): leprous, to touch, and to strike. However, those meanings are interjected in what looks like an attempt at etymology & cognate study with abbreviations for Middle Hebrew, Jewish Aramaic, and Mandaean. What I am wondering is whether this lexicon is avowing (at this point) that the root means leprous, to touch, and to strike; or whether the lexicon is merely saying that those meanings are found in Middle Hebrew (Middle Ages), Jewish Aramaic, and Mandaean respectively? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpkang Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 To answer your immediate question, the latter. HALOT is pretty circumspect about putative root meanings (note that every single word in the phrase "roots have meaning" is up for grammatical and semantic debate). Note that BDB (1906) more confidently asserts "touch, reach, strike" for Biblical Hebrew definitions of נגע before it starts citing cognate evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.