Wednesday, February 11, 2009

SBL II

Well, now that I am actually working on the research for my upcoming paper (see SBL Central States pose below), I am immersed in Hebrew once again. I have successfully identified my cognate verb-pair--subh and tubh. These verbs occur in the needed qal-hiph'il and pe'al-haph'el themes and, as mentioned, are cognates of one another. There are 7 occurrences of tubh and 1035 of subh. Yes, 1035; that means 1042 (give or take) total occurrences that I'll be handling.

Bring it!

NB: My wife says that no one will have any clue what I am talking about in this post. Please post a comment and prove her wrong (I have a new hammer awaiting me when I win this bet; I need a new hammer).






Posted by at
Labels:

6 comments:

  1. Cheryl KFebruary 11, 2009 at 10:43 PM

    What do I get if I am right? I really need a new puppy! Come on puppy! Bring on the puppy!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Will KFebruary 11, 2009 at 10:47 PM

    Cheryl, I'm sorry, but I just don't understand your comment. Lose the jargon.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Barrett TurnerFebruary 12, 2009 at 9:58 PM

    Is one verb Hebrew and the other Aramaic? If not, do you mean that they are the same type of verb? That part I don't understand and I took Hebrew. If so, you'll be looking at their analogous verbal themes in a lot of texts.

    -Judas Maccabeus & Charles Martel, co-signed

    ReplyDelete
  4. Will KFebruary 13, 2009 at 9:07 AM

    Barrett, yes, 'SWB' is BH and 'TWB' is BA. They are root cognates (a shin is quite often a taw in Aramaic). Obviously, there is a greater opportunity for semantic nuancing in the BH realm since there are so many more examples and thematic presences (which is exciting); unfortunately we only have examples of 'TWB' in the pe'al and haph'el. I really wish the pa'el was attested, or even the pu'al in BA, but alas, they are not.

    I will not be considering synonymous roots of either; I am content to stick with a single root in BH/BA and investigate thematic morphological valency change therein. A theological dictionary entry would, though, require synonymous treatment. This, however, is pure lexicography from a typology perspective.

    I am marking you down as "understand." :)

    ReplyDelete
  5. JenniferFebruary 13, 2009 at 11:03 AM

    I'm on Cheryl side with this one. One vote for the puppy!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Will KJuly 17, 2009 at 2:43 PM

    UPDATE: They understood me just fine...and I got no new hammer...and Cheryl got her "puppy." I just can't win, not even when I win!

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)