> Thanks, Edgar, for a splendid and very informative essay. I would add that
> everything you have said, except for the part about bibliography in BAGD
> (which LSJ doesn't have) applies equally to use of Liddell-Scott-Jones.
> Jonathan has nicely described the function of Louw-Nida; I would say that
> L-N is the place to get a sense of the nuanced differences between
> different words that either overlap in meaning or point to different senses
> within a larger spectrum of particular semantic realms.
Does anyone else sense that at times the L-N begs the question in its
map of semantic domains? For instance, with respect to PEIRAZW, they seem
to me to assume that the verb has a nuance of entice/seduce (i.e.,
"tempt" in the modern sense of this word) without ever examining it to
see if indeed this is so. It appears at times as if L and N have
looked at other lexicons, noted down how others have defined it, and used these
definitions for their description limits of a term's range without ever
questioning whether a given lexicographer's definition is correct. Is
this an adequate assessment?