[B-Greek] Gen 3:16b LXX: t'shuqah (desire) => APOSTROFH (turning)
Iver Larsen
iver_larsen at sil.org
Thu Jan 7 11:41:14 EST 2010
Albert,
Thanks for taking time to give the added explanations.
Since you bring up the matter of principle, it is my impression from your
previous post on semantics, that it is somewhat out of date. It appears to
ignore how much the context can add to the intended meaning of a particular word
in a particular context. This is one of the crucial insights from pragmatics and
Relevance Theory. By the way, RT uses "context" in a much wider sense than
usual, so one cannot understand the meaning of that word when used by certain
people without knowing how they are using it.
Iver
----- Original Message -----
From: "Albert Pietersma" <albert.pietersma at sympatico.ca>
To: "Iver Larsen" <iver_larsen at sil.org>
Cc: "Eric S. Weiss" <papaweiss1 at yahoo.com>; "b-greek"
<b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: 7. januar 2010 19:18
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Gen 3:16b LXX: t'shuqah (desire) => APOSTROFH (turning)
Iver,
I have neither the time nor the inclination to investigate the
semantic range of of APOSTROFH. Nor, for that matter, would doing so
aid the present discussion. The point I have been trying to make is
not one of detail but one of principle. You suggested that in order to
get at the meaning of APOSTROFH, we need to study Hebrew TShWQH. I
continue to think that such an approach is erroneous and passé in LXX
studies.
Similarly, I did not rise in defense of NETS--which is not say that I
reject what the individual NETS translators did. As it happens, yes,
LSJ does in fact give "attention (paid to a person)" as a gloss for
EPISTROFH, and, yes, LSJ does in fact give "recourse" as a gloss for
APOSTROFH. But, as I am sure you agree, a specific gloss in dictionary
is scarcely the point.
What sources should we turn to? Obviously the sources we have, but as
with all sources, to use them well, we need to be aware of their
strengths and weaknesses. I do not reject Muraoka, in fact quite the
contrary. In my view, it is the best Lexicon we have and it has taken
giant strides away from the manner in which LSJ dealt with the the
LXX. But does that mean that Muraoka's lexicon has no weaknesses?
Certainly not. Neither do I reject LSJ, but its approach to the LXX is
well known and has often been criticized notably by John Lee (see e.g.
his article in Glotta more than forty years ago). Incidentally,
regarding APOSTROFH LSJ, rightly, makes no mention of any LXX
reference. Lastly, I do not reject LEH, but since I am aware of the
principles that undergird it, I make allowances and try to use it
wisely.
Al
On Jan 7, 2010, at 12:37 AM, Iver Larsen wrote:
> You did not interact with my suggestion for the semantic range, but clarified
> your rejection of Muraoka and also questioned LEH. Are you also unhappy with
> LSJ? Is "recourse" and "attention" listed there or where did the NETS get
> those from? Which APOSTROFAI (resources) should we turn to?
>
> Can you explain to us the semantic range of APOSTROFH?
>
> Iver Larsen
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list