[B-Greek] Gen 3:16b LXX: t'shuqah (desire) => APOSTROFH (turning)
Albert Pietersma
albert.pietersma at sympatico.ca
Thu Jan 7 12:29:26 EST 2010
Again, I quite agree about the role of context. The crucial question
is, however: What is context, when it comes to the vast majority of
the translated books of the LXX?
I attach a brief article of mine calling renewed attention to John
Lee's Glotta article. I might just say that Lee was in the audience
when I delivered it and wholeheartedly endorsed it.
Al
P.S. Sorry, Carl, I didn't realize that attachments were not allowed.
The article is entitled "Context is King in Septuagint Lexicography--
Or is It?" and can be found at http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~pietersm/
On Jan 7, 2010, at 11:41 AM, Iver Larsen wrote:
> 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 your previous post on semantics, that it is somewhat out of date.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
>
>
—
Albert Pietersma PhD
21 Cross Street,
Weston ON Canada M9N 2B8
Email: albert.pietersma at sympatico.ca
Homepage: http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~pietersm
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list