Re: Use of BAGD

From: Carl W. Conrad (
Date: Thu Nov 14 1996 - 11:13:38 EST

At 9:51 AM -0600 11/14/96, Jeffrey Gibson wrote:
>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
>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?

I think this is a good point. I've come across at least one other
distinction made by Louw/Nida that didn't same quite right to me. On the
whole I think it's a very good and valuable work, but it ought to be
understood that the finest of authorities is subject to human error of one
sort another, and if one doubts the wisdom that authority offers, one may
and should check the data offered by the texts and endeavor to correct the
error or question the observation. As the old hymn says, "time makes
ancient good uncouth."

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018 OR

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:56 EDT