tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3613525030683671127.post2402925864786582709..comments2023-10-12T14:09:33.965-07:00Comments on The Biblia Hebraica Blog: Another Must-Have Book: Concise Dictionary of Classical HebrewDouglas Mangumhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15267532075493569019noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3613525030683671127.post-87195046661000127082009-11-08T14:06:54.714-08:002009-11-08T14:06:54.714-08:00Mike,
Start with the reviews of vol 1 by Muraoka ...Mike,<br /><br />Start with the reviews of vol 1 by Muraoka and Andersen. <br /><br />I based my opinion on Clines' description of their method in the preface to vol. 1. I know some things changed along the way as they responded to critiques, but his description for vol. 1 was very much in line with classical Saussurean linguistics (ca. 1910 - not very modern). Linguistics as a discipline has come a long way from Saussure. It would be like saying that my biblical research is in line with modern methods and then describing my approach as if nothing has happened in the field since Wellhausen or Gunkel.<br /><br />I'm open to correction on this point if someone more familiar with their approach can point me to where they've revised it to be more linguistically relevant.<br /><br />Current linguistic theory on semantics and lexicography is based more on cognitive linguistics and prototype semantics. The most cutting edge research that I know of for Biblical Hebrew is the <a rel="nofollow">Semantic Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew</a> project sponsored by UBS.Douglas Mangumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15267532075493569019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3613525030683671127.post-72880739632593175412009-11-07T22:40:11.814-08:002009-11-07T22:40:11.814-08:00their theoretical foundation in modern linguistics...<i>their theoretical foundation in modern linguistics was not so modern</i><br /><br />any discussion of this you could point me to?Mike Aubreyhttp://evepheso.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.com