International Syriac Language Project

• Wido van Peursen, Series Co-ditor
• Daniel King, Series Co-editor
• Richard Taylor, Conference Co-ordinator
• Terry Falla, Team Consultant

The ISLP is essentially a working group for those who are actively involved in ancient-language research and who wish to be involved in the meetings and publications of the ISLP. The expectation of new members is that they would present papers at ISLP meetings over a few years, participate in the annual business meetings, and take a turn at being co-editor of a colloquia volume. If there comes a time when they are no longer able to participate, there is the option of a rest period, after which the member may either become active again, or resign membership.

The ISLP meets at least once annually at international conferences.

The ISLP Conference Coordinator is Richard A. Taylor, Dallas Theological Seminary.

Upcoming Meetings

• 2024 Amsterdam, at the SBL International Meeting, 28 July–1 August
• 2025 Uppsala/Berlin (tbc) 
• 2026 Bucharest, XIV Symposium Syriacum (tbc) 
• 2027 Washington, at the SBL International Meeting (tbc)

Past Meetings

• 2003  Cambridge, at the SBL International Meeting, 20–25 July
• 2004  Groningen, at the SBL International Meeting, 25–28 July
• 2005  Philadelphia, at the SBL Annual Meeting, 19–22 November
• 2006  Edinburgh, at the SBL International Meeting, 2–6 July
• 2007  Ljubljana, at the IOSOT Congress, 12–20 July
• 2008  Granada, at the Xth Symposium Syriacum, 22–27 September
• 2009  New Orleans, at the SBL Annual Meeting, 21–24 November
• 2010  Helsinki, at the IOSOT Congress, 1–6 August
• 2011  London, at the SBL International Meeting, 3–7 July, and San Francisco, at the SBL Annual Meeting, 19–22 November
• 2012  Malta, at the XIth Symposium Syriacum, 15–18 July
• 2013  Munich, at the IOSOT Congress, 4–9 August
• 2014  St Petersburg, Russian Academy of Sciences, 30 June–5 July
• 2015  Atlanta, Georgia, at the SBL Annual Meeting, 21–24 November
• 2016  Stellenbosch, South Africa, at the IOSOT Congress, 4–9 September, and San Antonio, Texas, at the SBL Annual Meeting, 19–22 November
• 2017  Berlin, at the SBL International Meeting, 7–11 August, and Boston, at the SBL Annual Meeting, 18–21 November
• 2018  Denver, Colorado, at the SBL Annual Meeting, 17–21 November
• 2019 Aberdeen, at the IOSOT Congress, 4–9 August, and San Diego, at the SBL Annual Meeting, 23-26 November
• 2021: XIII Symposium Syriacum, Paris 6–11 July
• 2020: Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting, Boston, 21–24 November (online)
• 2022: Zurich, at the IOSOT Congress, 8-12 August

Aitken, James K. “Context of Situation in Biblical Lexica.”

Greek lexicographer James Aitken[1] addresses the question of social context in ascertaining meaning, and advocates the need for some contextual information in biblical lexica. At the same time, he recognizes that the practicalities of how to incorporate such data in lexica are complex and that they should be used with restraint. In this regard, he notes that, because of our lack of familiarity with the ancient world, the traditional distinction between information contained in a dictionary and that contained in an encyclopaedia has been blurred in lexica on ancient languages; a distinction that cognitive linguistics also wishes to minimize. His examples from Greek lexica show how attention to the history of a word (although not to such diachronic elements as etymology), its use within different types of literature and other sources, and especially the social circumstances within which a word is used, are important. He concludes that the tendency to opt for glosses, or for definitions that are little more than a rewording of the glosses, is not sufficient and that it is possible to say more than the current lexica allow. While they need not be extensive or cover many lines of the lexicon, more detailed definitions that describe the uses of a particular word are called for and would serve the needs of the lexicon user to far greater extent than what is currently available.

Aitken, James K. “Other Hebrew Lexica: Zorell and Alonso Schoekel.”

James Aitken[2] discusses the advantages of considering a number of lexica at a time, and then compares the two modern lexica, Zorell’s Lexicon Hebraicum et Aramaicum Veteris Testamenti  (1947–1954) and Alonso Schökel’s Diccionario bíblico hebreo-español (3^rd ed., 2008) as products of their time, each reflecting linguistic principles in their organization and content. Aitken draws illustrations from the semantic field of derogatory speech to show how each lexicon presents its data and to indicate how informative each of them can be for the careful reader. By way of conclusion, he cites O’Connor’s observation[3] that the lexica of Clines (DCH) and Alonso Schökel are alike, in a similar way that Zorell’s lexicon and the first edition of KBL are. Each is a product of its time, seen especially in those produced in the 1990’s (Clines and Alonso Schökel) with their removal of data such as etymology or comparative material, and their focus upon contextual and syntactic evidence. No doubt the lexica of the twenty-first century will also be products of their time, but reflect a happy balance between all these recent lexica.

Alikin, Valery. “Preventing Drunkenness in the Christian Gathering: Hints from the Graeco-Roman World and the New Testament.”

Valeriy Alikin[4] investigates the evidence for drunkenness and the admonitions to prevent drunkenness in early Christian gatherings and their parallels in Graeco-Roman literature. Although wine was drunk diluted with water in the Graeco-Roman world, this did not prevent participants from getting drunk. Admonitions against drunkenness in early Christian writings suggest that Christians also sometimes got drunk at their communal gatherings. Christians followed the advice presented by pagan sources on how to prevent drunkenness and also devised their own ways.

Aydin, Mor Polycarpus Augin. “Introduction to Awgen Manna’s Lexicon.”

Mor Polycarpus Augin Aydin[5] translates Awgen Manna’s methodology for his Syriac-Arabic lexicon. This methodology is part of the introduction to the lexicon, and its translation will provide future scholars with valuable insights into how earlier lexicographers approached the task.

Aydin, Mor Polycarpus Augin. “Qlido d-Leshono—Key of Language: A Comprehensive Syriac Lexicon.”

Mor Polycarpus Augin Aydin[6] presents a report of a new recently-published Syriac-Syriac lexicon, authored by Dayroyo Yuyakim d’beth Yahkob, Abbot of St Augin Monastery, Mount Izlo, Tur Abdin, in southeast Anatolia, Turkey, and entitled ܩܠܝܕܐ ܕܠܫܢܐ/Qlido d-Leshono―Key of Language.[7] The report discusses the lexicon’s methodology and the sources and resources it employs, and compares it with Audo’s Syriac-Syriac Lexicon of 1897. [8] The report explains why this new lexicon will likely supersede previous Syriac lexica produced within the Syriac tradition.

Bakker, Dirk. “Lemma and Lexeme: The Case of Third-Alaph and Third-Yodh Verbs.”

Dirk Bakker[9] argues that traditional dictionaries of Syriac and other Aramaic dialects do not always provide all the information required to meet modern linguistic needs. Often the entries in these dictionaries are ambiguous as to the morphological structure of words, and do not provide a clear distinction between a lexeme and its inflectional affixes. The lemmas often consist of inflected forms, and the information in the entries is insufficient for determining the identity of the lexeme. A result of these inaccuracies is the possible loss of distinction between separate types of lexemes, a clear example of which is the treatment of third-Alaph and third-Yodh verbs in Syriac and other Aramaic dialects. Unlike grammars, dictionaries rarely reflect the morphological distinction between these two verb types. Bakker maintains that a modern dictionary cannot allow such a loss of information to occur, but should meet the needs both of a linguistic scholar and of a translator. The entries should provide full linguistic information on the words they cover, granting a prominent position to the lexeme. The lexeme stands at the basis of word formation, and as such is an indispensable piece of information for the study of the morphological behaviour of grammatical forms.

Bakker, Dirk, and Wido van Peursen. “Lemmatization and Morphological Analysis: The Case of ܗܰܝܡܶܢ in Classical Syriac.”

Wido van Peursen and Dirk Bakker[10] examine three interpretations of the Syriac verb ܗܝܡܢ, to believe: as a causative stem, as a quadrilateral verb, and as a Pai‘el.  They argue that because objections can be raised against interpreting ܗܝܡܢ as a causative Haph‘el or Aph‘el and it has an etymological rather than an inflectional relationship with the root ܐܡܢ, it is preferable to analyze it as a quadrilateral verb. For this reason, dictionaries should treat ܗܝܡܢ as a quadrilateral root.

Blois, Reinier de. “New Tools and Methodologies for Biblical Lexicography.”

Hebrew lexicographer Reinier de Blois[11] notes that effective methodology and appropriate tools can greatly enhance the efficiency and quality of a lexicographer’s work. One tool specifically designed for creating lexica of biblical texts is the Source Language Tools programme developed by the United Bible Societies. The programme consists of two sets of tools: textual, which give access to interlinear versions of the biblical source texts and allow for different kinds of searches; and lexical, which give access to existing lexica and allow the user to create new ones. One such dictionary is the Semantic Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew (SDBH), of which Blois is editor. The first part of the article discusses the theoretical framework behind SDBH: the cognitive context of words and the importance of the use of semantic categorization, which may have different results in different languages. The second part demonstrates how the programme facilitates the compilation process, gives access to data from biblical languages, and enables the user to do lexicographical research and create and edit a dictionary of a biblical language.

Blois, Reinier de. “Semantic Domains for Biblical Greek: Louw and Nida’s Framework Evaluated from a Cognitive Perspective.”

Reinier de Blois[12] looks at semantic domain theory and its use in biblical lexicography, and discusses Louw and Nida’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains, the first biblical lexicon making use of this theory. The theoretical framework of Louw and Nida’s work is based on the semantic model usually referred to as componential analysis of meaning. Over recent decades, new linguistic insights have emerged, which have a significant impact on domain theory. This article looks at semantic domain theory from the perspective of cognitive linguistics and shows how this new approach may serve to improve Louw and Nida’s framework.

Blois, Reinier de. “The Semantic Structure of Biblical Hebrew.”

Reinier de Blois offers a semantic analysis[13] of Biblical Hebrew from a cognitive linguistic perspective, providing a more effective method for determining the meaning of words, especially for those languages no longer spoken in the same form today. He demonstrates how this method of analysis can help to reconstruct a kind of “semantic grid” for Biblical Hebrew, and how this grid provides the lexicographer with more certainty in his/her efforts to determine the meaning of “difficult” words such as hapax legomena and other words with a limited distribution in the available texts. He illustrates the advantages of this method with a number of Hebrew words of uncertain meaning.

Blois, Reinier de. “Where Syntax and Semantics Intersect: The Story of שׁלח.”

Reinier de Blois[14] discusses the role that syntax can play in the semantic analysis of a Hebrew lexeme and focuses on the valence of the frequently occurring Hebrew verb שׁלח to send.  He brings to light the subtle nuances of meaning in certain passages that can easily be overlooked, such as irony, disdain, etc. The article acknowledges the range of lexical meanings of שׁלח, and examines “five different frames, consisting of the verb שׁלח together with its core constituents,”[15] that is, the noun phrases and prepositional phrases that co-occur with it. A number of apparent exceptions are also discussed, with an explanation as to why they may not be exceptions at all. If lexicographers would pay more attention to valence, says the author, and present their data in such a way that these valence relations receive the attention they deserve, the user would get another step closer to a better understanding of Biblical Hebrew.

Brock, Sebastian P. “Syriac Lexicography: Reflections on Sources and Resources.”

Sebastian Brock[16] reflects on sources and resources available for Syriac lexicography. The first part of the article offers remarks about the three major Syriac dictionaries (R. Payne Smith, Brockelmann, and Audo) and their offspring. The second part discusses sources that might prove useful for any future work on Syriac lexicography. Such a task of supplementing the combined resources of the three existing major dictionaries, although formidable, would be a manageable undertaking—provided, of course, the resources, financial and of suitably qualified personnel, could be found. And indeed, on a smaller scale it would be desirable if a database of materials could be built up gradually, and to which editors of new texts could contribute individually, so that this would eventually become a major lexicographical resource for Syriac scholars, and one from which one day in the distant future a new major Syriac lexicon might be compiled.

Buettner, Cyrill von.  “A Few Notes Concerning the Reading of הסתרתי in the Great Isaiah Scroll (Isa 50:6b).”

Cyrill von Buettner[17] discusses the origins of the unique reading הסתרתי I turned in Isa 50:6 in the Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsa^a). After agreeing with earlier conclusions that the original version of the text is found in MT (הסתרתי I hid), the author suggests that the Qumran version resulted from text editing by a scribe, and had an explanatory function. Possibly the main reason for such changes was that, whereas the verb הסתיר to hide with the noun פנים face usually form a set expression that has the meaning to ignore, they are used in Isa 50:6 with their literal meaning as a combination of a verb and a noun. That is, in this passage the hiding of the face meant to protect the character. Additionally, there may have been an attempt to avoid a contradiction with a similar expression in Isa 53:3.

Burton, Marilyn. “Cognitive Methodology in the Study of an Ancient Language: Impediments and Possibilities.”

Marilyn Burton[18] addresses the application of a cognitive approach to lexical semantics to the study of ancient languages, which, where suitable data are available, is widely acknowledged to be superior in many ways to more traditional structuralist and generativist methodologies. While acknowledging the challenges posed by dead languages, she examines previous attempts within biblical semantics and related fields to compensate for the lack of available native-speaker input and proposes some new avenues for exploration. She suggests that much of the information that would normally be gleaned from a native speaker can be extracted from two types of clues found in the extant texts: those found in parallelism and word pairs, and those found in syntax and association.

Calabro, David. “The Word That Was from the Beginning: Syriac Etymology in a Digital Age.”

This essay lays out a theoretical basis for the creation of a digital etymological lexicon of Syriac that is oriented to issues of cultural history. The proposed lexicon would enable researchers to systematically study semantic shifts, the interaction between templatic patterns and semantic domains, and the effect of language contact on specific geographical, semantic, generic, and chronological segments of the lexicon. This focus on cultural history justifies the inclusion of extensive etymologies, contrary to a recent trend in the lexicography of Egypto-Semitic languages, in which lexicons employ only pared-down etymologies or no etymologies at all. At the same time, the digital nature of the proposed lexicon renders extensive etymologies feasible. Keys to an optimal culture-focused digital etymological lexicon include (1) a clear division between the core entry, linear etymology, and comparative data; (2) interlinking of text citations to a digital text corpus; (3) interlinking of comparative data to other etymological lexicons; (4) referencing and critical use of secondary sources; and (5) extensive tagging, especially for semantic categories. I argue that Jessie Payne Smith’s Compendious Syriac Dictionary is the best starting-point for the proposed digital lexicon due to its alphabetical arrangement, its inclusion of idiomatic phrases, and its lack of pre-existent etymologies and text citations.

Childers, Jeff. “Embedded Oracles: Sortilege in a Syriac Gospel Codex.”

Jeff Childers[19] examines a unique sixth- or seventh-century Peshitta manuscript of John’s Gospel (BL Add. 17119), which supplies a glimpse into the practises of specialized interpreters who sought mystical guidance in the Bible according to methods that were often considered illicit. The manuscript includes an unusual apparatus for sortilege, incorporated directly into the biblical text. This Syriac manuscript is the most complete and intact instance of the phenomenon known to exist.

Clines, David J. A. “How My (Lexicographical) Mind Has Changed, Or Else Remained the Same.”

Veteran Hebrew lexicographer David Clines[20] offers “for the interest of co-workers on the International Syriac Language Project,” some reflections on lexicographical practice in the light of his experience with the eight-volume The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, completed in 2011.[21] Clines begins with a number of principles and procedures that he would consider changing or improving if he were beginning the work again, and continues with some of the features that he would be most eager to preserve.

Clines, David J. A. “Towards a Science of Comparative Classical Hebrew Lexicography.”

David Clines[22] engages in a systematic study of the lexica of Classical Hebrew, including over six hundred Hebrew dictionaries in European languages from the sixteenth century onwards. First, certain formal features are compared, especially their inclusion or non-inclusion of Aramaic, their provision of indexes, their notation of cognates in other Semitic languages, and their treatment of homonyms. This is followed by the comparative examination of how four individual Hebrew words were treated by lexicographers through the centuries: חיל wall, לביא lion, גלה I reveal, II go into exile, and שׁקע I sink, II bind. Finally, some general conclusions are presented, which include, inter alia, the suggestion that scholars should not uncritically accept the definitions found in lexica, and the fact that new words and meanings are still being discovered. The article ends with a list of Hebrew lexica, mentioned in the paper, dating from the tenth to the twentieth century.

Cook, John A. “Valency: The Intersection of Syntax and Semantics.”

John Cook[23] presents a theory of valency that has been developed out of the Accordance syntax project, and discusses its contribution to our knowledge of Biblical Hebrew syntax and lexicography. He points out that so far verbal valency has played only a minor role in Hebrew grammars due to the fact that its study is still in its infancy. He demonstrates the superiority of a valency approach over traditional grammatical approaches, and distinguishes between valency, voice, and transitivity. He also identifies several issues currently under discussion, such as the difficulty of distinguishing between complements and adjuncts, and advocates his preference for Thomas Herbst’s three-way complement distinction.

Craig, Marie-Louise. “Pioneers and ‘No Through Roads’: The Story of the Early Hebrew-English Lexicons.”

Marie-Louise Craig’s examination[24] of early Hebrew-English lexica between 1593 and 1800 identifies two distinct groups: those written between 1593 and 1656, and those written in the second half of the eighteenth century. She probes the motivations, aims, language theories, sources, resources, and methods of presenting the entries of each group, and notes that the works of each group, though pioneering in nature, had limited publication life and were not used by subsequent generations of scholars to any significant degree. Craig explores the problems encountered by these lexicographical pioneers and the reasons for the dead ends their works encountered. One element is the non-conformist motivations for their lexica that led future generations to neglect or reject their scholarship. Another is the theological foundation of their linguistic theory, which understood Hebrew to be the divine and original language. Once linguistic science had established that Hebrew was one of a number of related Semitic languages, lexicographical scholarship passed over any lexicon based on the earlier theory for productions that were more modern.

Craig, Marie-Louise. “Take One Hebrew Lexicon, Add Fresh Theology, and Mix Well: The Impact of Theology on Hebrew-English Lexicons.”

Marie-Louise Craig[25] explores the impact of theology on Hebrew-English lexica in the past and the extent to which they were influenced by the intellectual milieu of the day. In particular, she examines the influence of theology in the lexica of four specific lexicographers—Parkhurst,[26] Levi,[27] Leo,[28] and Lee[29]—of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. She cautions against the danger of repeating history and challenges modern lexicographers of biblical languages to beware of assuming that a particular method is independent of specific cultural and intellectual influences and of the impact of their own theology and culture on their work, critically assessing whether it will produce the kind of lexicon for which they are aiming.

Danker, Frederick William. “Moving Beyond Borders: Thoughts of A Greek Lexicographer.”

Fred Danker[30] reflects on a lifetime’s engagement with Greek lexicography and offers pointers for the future based on his experience “as having a hand in the production of two editions of Walter Bauer’s legacy,” namely, the Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. What makes his paper particularly relevant to this collection, as well as to readers engaged in the study of Syriac from a lexical perspective, is his advocacy of the interaction of lexicographical theory and practice. He recognizes that lexicographers often work in the shadow of a long tradition—in his case one that began in 1514—and in practice they are conditioned by and build upon the labours of their predecessors. In this article, he argues that lexicographical and linguistic research allows the lexicographer to see the weaknesses and strengths of their predecessors’ work and reconceive their enterprise accordingly. In a discussion regarding the preparation of definitions to establish lexical meaning, he examines a range of Greek terms.

Danker, Frederick William. “Lexical Problems: Synonymy and Metonymy and Related Issues.”

By invitation, Fred presented this paper at one of the ISLP sessions in November 2011 at the SBL Annual Meeting in San Francisco. Anyone who heard this paper and was familiar with Danker’s characteristic approach would have been conscious of the presence of an unexpected genre: autobiography. He brings his life’s work, his insistence on scientific method, and his specific subject into conversation with one another. Only in retrospect could one appreciate that the “related issues” in the title refers to moments in this man’s long journey that shaped and defined his academic vocation and that bring us, in a few words, to contemporary frontiers of the subject about which has was so passionate. Towards the end of the article, Danker turns his attention to the meaning of six Greek words as they are employed in a particular New Testament contexts: λόγος in Rom 13, δοῦλος in Rom 1:1, Ἰουδαῖος in the New Testament, “for which the least semantically hazardous option is Judean,” ἄνθρωπε in Lk 5:20, αἴνιγμα in 1 Cor 13:12, and κάθημαι in Mt 27:61. Shortly after the conference, Fred sent Terry as Series Editor his completed article. The abstract to follow never arrived. Born on July 12, 1920, he died, having farewelled his family, on February 2, 2012.

Danker, Frederick William. “A Linguistic-Cultural Approach to Alleged Pauline and Lukan Christological Disparity.”

The aim of the article[31] is, in Danker’s own words, to examine “the problem of contextual consideration in determining the meaning of a term.” It takes into account the problems generated by endeavours to relate the meaning of an ancient text to the modern interpreter’s world. The article fulfils this aim by considering the alleged disparity between the writings of Paul and Luke, who, despite their different perspectives, share a common language for understanding the significance of Jesus. Both writings borrowed diction, phrasing, and themes from public monuments. Danker provides evidence of this borrowing in his examination of Jesus described as a “great benefactor” in the Gospel of Luke and Paul’s Letter to the Romans. Perhaps his second last publication, it demonstrates that at age ninety-one Danker was, in his thinking and methodological perspective, still at the forefront of ancient-language lexicography.

Dyer, Keith. “Basileia or Imperium? Rome and the Rhetoric of Resistance in the Revelation to John.”

Keith Dyer[32] demonstrates that basileia terminology is very seldom used of Rome or its Caesars in the first century. Recent interpretations of first century Greek texts in the context of the Roman empire often assume that basileia language refers directly to the Roman imperium. The assertion is often made, for example, that the basileia tou Theou language in the New Testament means the Empire of God which then directly confronts the Empire of Rome. Exegetes need to pay more attention to lexicography on these matters, for basileia terminology is very seldom used of Rome or its Caesars in the first century. Dyer also explores the implications of this understanding for interpreting the critique of Rome in the Book of Revelation, with special attention to Rev 11:15. He concludes that the basileia of the kosmos of “our Lord and his Christ” is not an empire like Rome’s—nor any other human empire—which leaves us with the provocative question, “might not the problem (of interpreting basileia language) lie with we who interpret from positions of power—needing an imperial Christ to justify our own empires?”

Dyk, Janet W. “Desiderata for the Lexicon from a Syntactic Point of View.”

Janet Dyk,[33] from a linguistic perspective, illustrates how syntax affects semantics and asks whether syntactic information should be included in the Syriac lexicon, and, if so, what type and how the lexicon should present it. She begins with the formal point of view that words display distinct contrastive and combinatorial functions and that these unique properties can be stored in the lexicon. The fact that an element may function as different parts of speech in a specific environment is the systematic product of the interaction of the basic qualities of the element itself with the context in which it occurs. Though the lexicon could include as separate items the various functions which an element may have, reference should be made to the basic form from which the other functions are derivable on the basis of consistently applied syntactic rules. Traced with an extensive text corpus, an element manifests a limited number of shifts in part of speech and the possible shifts within the language can be represented in a single unidirectional chain of parts of speech.

Dyk, Janet W. “A Synopsis-Based Translation Concordance as a Tool for Lexical and Text-Critical Exploration.”

Janet Dyk[34] notes that from 2000 to 2004 the Peshitta Institute in Leiden and the Werkgroep Informatica at the Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, collaborated in the CALAP (Computer-Assisted Linguistic Analysis of the Peshitta) project to develop a database of the Peshitta of Kings. One of the products is a translation concordance, which couples words to one another based on a synopsis at clause level, with phrases matched according to their function as clause constituents, and with parts of speech serving as a basis for matching words within a phrase. This matching reveals the most frequent equivalents, the range of synonyms, and glaring exceptions. One result is the possible effect of the phonetic characteristics/graphic representation of an item upon its transmission, a feature often important for textual criticism.

Dyk, Janet W. “Form and Function in the Treatment of the Passive Participle.”

For Janet Dyk,[35] the transitivity, intransitivity, stativity, or passivity of a verbal form affects the number and nature of elements in its valence pattern, that is, elements occurring along with it in a grammatically well-formed sentence. The more elements required, the more “verbal” the form is considered to be. The opposite is also true: the fewer the elements, the less inherently verbal the form is taken to be. Thus our judgements in classifying verbal forms is affected by the class of verbs to which a form belongs. Whole sets of verbs have ended up in classical lexica listed without certain paradigmatic forms, for example, participles, while the form corresponding exactly to the participle is given as a separate entry and called an adjective. Yet the latter function does not satisfactorily account for all occurrences of the form. Due to their passive nature, passive participles tend to function attributively, but this is not the case everywhere and at all times. It is the “Doppelnatur” of the participle which allows for the variety in its syntactic functions, but this does not change its part of speech. For lexica to be consistent in their treatment of language data, the systematic functioning of elements within the whole of the language must be kept in focus. In constructing a lexicon, various principles can be followed. Usability and systematic elegance are both worthy goals. The effects of the two can be in conflict in the practical treatment of language data. Alternative treatments of the passive participle are presented and the effects are compared. Suggestions are made for preserving the best of both approaches.

Dyk, Janet W. “The Peshitta Rendering of Psalm 25: Spelling, Synonyms, and Syntax.”

Janet Dyk[36] compares the Hebrew and Syriac texts of Psalm 25. She notes that the very act of making a translation implies that the rendered text will differ from the source text, and that translations differ in how close they stay to the source text. Using the Masoretic and Peshitta versions of the psalm, she explores the characteristics of the Syriac renderings, taking note of issues involving spelling, synonyms, and syntax. Among the various findings detailed in the conclusion, is the pleasant and surprising discovery that Peshitta Psalm 25 contains a higher number of unique lexical items than the source text, testifying to a conscious effort to produce variation in lexical choice.

Dyk, Janet W. “The Hebrew and the Syriac Copula in Kings.”

Janet Dyk[37] compares and contrasts the Hebrew copula היה and Syriac copula ܗܘܐ in Kings. In the Masoretic and Peshitta texts, she observes that, although these verbs are cognates, they do not always correspond to each other and in a significant number of cases one text lacks an equivalent in the other text. The article explores the reasons for these differences by presenting a limited number of syntactic and distributional factors that account for the majority of cases where the copula is without correspondence in the other version. Based on these observations, Dyk draws some conclusions on differences between the Hebrew and Syriac language systems.

Dyk, Janet W. “The Cognate Verbs שים and ܣܘܡ in the Books of Kings: Similarities and Differences.”

Janet Dyk[38] compares the cognate Syriac and Hebrew verb שׂים and ܣܘܡ, to place in the book of Kings. Using the Hebrew material already available in the Werkgroep Informatica database,[39] Dyk, working with Percy van Keulen, has made a synopsis of the Masoretic text and the Peshitta at clause level. On the basis of the synopsis, clause constituents are matched, providing a basis for matching phrases within clauses, and for matching words within phrases. One of the products of this work is an electronic translation concordance with lists of translation correspondences occurring within Kings (introduced at the 2005 ISLP meeting). The lexical items occurring at corresponding points in the two texts need not necessarily be lexicon-based semantic translations of one another, but they are what do occur at that point in the two texts. The study allows two different types of observation: observations concerning the language systems involved, and the choices made by the translator; it reveals factors at work during the translation process, and similarities and differences between the two texts.

Dyk, Janet W. “How do Hebrew Verbs Differ? A Flow Chart of the Differences.”

Janet Dyk[40] demonstrates how we might identify the semantics of a Hebrew verb by examining how its core lexical meaning is made visible in the syntactic elements of the sentence in which it occurs. With the aid of a methodological flow chart she asks the questions pertinent to the analysis of the verb in question. These questions can lead to an exposure of the core lexical meaning of the verb. The flow chart brings together the differences between verbs as projected onto the syntax of their sentence. A set of choices charts the presence or absence of specific sentence constituents. In this way differences between verbs are traceable and can be compared.

Dyk, Janet W. “The ‘Translation Enterprise’: Translation Universals in the Peshitta Rendering of Kings.”

Much of what we have observed while comparing the Hebrew books of Kings with the Syriac rendering reflects universal tendencies of translations. One could conclude that the tendencies articulated in the so-called translation universals possibly result from general strategies of the human brain when dealing simultaneously with different encoding systems.

Due to the absence of the original source text, variations in ancient versions of the Bible have led to postulations concerning an alternative source text. When the majority of ancient translations agree in a deviation from the Hebrew text available to us, one could propose an alternative source text. Yet even here a word of caution: due to the universal tendencies of translations mentioned above, the ancient versions may have chosen a similar solution to a difficulty in the source text.

Surprisingly, the effect of the formal characteristics of the source text, particularly the sound of the words involved, played a larger role than has been documented before, particularly in unusual renderings for which there is no other logical motivation.

Eskhult, Mats. “The use of Syriac ܗܐ in rendering Hebrew הִנֵה and Greek ἰδού or ἴδε in the Peshitta to Genesis and the Gospels.”

Mats Eskhult[41] compares ܗܳܐ, הִנֵה, and ἰδού or ἴδε in the Peshitta to Genesis and the Gospels. Revealing some of the differences between these Hebrew and Greek particles, he finds that Syriac ܗܳܐ exhibits a stronger connection to direct speech than the corresponding Greek particles ἰδού or ἴδε.

Eskhult, Mats. “The elusive ‘again’: Hebrew two-verb constructions and the particle ‘ōḏ in Greek and Aramaic rendition.”

Biblical Hebrew exhibits several ways of expressing the idea of continued activity, a common device is the two-verb construction containing šūḇ or bōsīf as the “empty verb”. The Septuagint renders the Hebrew two-verb construction in three ways, viz., by πάλιν “again”, ἐπιστρέφω “turn back”, or προστίθημι “add”. The Septuagint translators were fully aware of the adverbial function of the corresponding Hebrew expression. The renderings found in the Peshitta and the Targums are based on the “empty verbs” ʾwsp, hpk, and twb, perhaps showing less awareness of the adverbial sense.

In the Greek of the late Second Temple period the two-verb construction had obviously been replaced by πάλιν, which explains the common use of it in the New Testament. The Syriac translations always have tūḇ. The preponderance of tūḇ is also encountered in the later Targums.

Falla, Terry C. “A Conceptual Framework for a New Comprehensive Syriac-English Lexicon.”

This substantial article by Terry Falla[42] draws from and further develops his work on KPG to outline a conceptual framework for a new comprehensive Syriac-English lexicon. The article begins by outlining the need for such a lexicon and then proposes a conceptual framework, initially for a comprehensive lexicon to the Syriac New Testament, and in the long-term as a basis for the lexicalizing of other Syriac literature. The article addresses five basic questions: for whom is the work intended (audience); what Syriac literature would it cover and would it present that literature in a single work or a corpus-by-corpus series (scope); what sort of and how much information should be included (content); and how is that information to be ascertained (methodology); and can it be organized in a user-friendly manner that is methodologically compatible with its contents and is aesthetically pleasing (arrangement and presentation)?

Falla, Terry C. “Grammatical Classification in Syriac Lexica: A Syntactically Based Alternative.”

Terry Falla[43] notes that grammatical classification (taxonomy and parts of speech) and the methodology by which it is provided are the foundation stones of every entry in a lexicon. Even the initial act of citing a lexeme requires a classificatory judgement, irrespective of whether or not the lexeme is qualified by a part of speech notation. In Semitic lexicography the lack of a reliable methodology for taxonomy and parts of speech has perpetuated the confusion that exists in lexical classification. The proposed solution is a methodology that allows for a coherent and systematic analysis of complex morphological, syntactic, and semantic data, and is designed to accommodate future lexico-syntactic and semantic revisions and improvements. Of equal importance is its quest for concinnity. The solution incorporates a feature based on a recommendation by Janet Dyk, and the article concludes with an appendix which provides a comprehensive referenced definition of the syntactic functions of the Classical Syriac adjective.

Falla, Terry C. “Metaphor, Lexicography and Modern Linguistics: Should Figurative Speech Figure in Future Ancient-Language Lexica?”

Terry Falla[44] begins his article on figurative speech in ancient-language lexica by noting the wide range of views on this topic, from the acceptance of figurative speech in numerous dictionaries of both ancient and modern languages, through to the Lakoff-Johnson-Turner theory on metaphor, which rejects the very notion of figurative speech in a dictionary. In surveying a range of linguistic theory literature on this matter, Falla concludes that “modern linguistics” does not represent any one position on the issue. Non-cognitive-linguists present no obstacle to registering and analyzing figurative speech in a lexicon, while cognitive linguists embrace a range of positions from the disallowing of figurative speech to the identification and lexicalization of metaphor and other forms of figurative speech, using those very theories that in other instances have been used to disallow figurative speech. Falla’s essay also explores the issue of “live” and “dead” metaphors, and methodological problems requiring resolution before metaphor and other forms of figurative speech are incorporated in a future comprehensive Syriac-English lexicon. Finally, he notes that his discussion is equally applicable to other ancient-language lexica.

Falla, Terry C. “Reflections on Two Articles by Frederick W. Danker: Background and Appreciation.”

A tribute by Terry Falla to Frederick William Danker.[45]

Falla, Terry C. “What to Do About Citing Ambiguity in a Corpus-Specific Lexicon.”

Terry Falla[46] explores the issue of semantic and syntactic ambiguity in a corpus-specific ancient-language lexicon. He discusses the problems and advantages that confront the lexicographer who seeks to provide information on instances of ambiguity and what future Classical Syriac lexicography can learn from them. Four primary types of ambiguity are identified and discussed: ambiguity due to a lack of information, semantic ambiguity due to syntactic ambiguity, intentional ambiguity, and ambiguous figurative speech requiring interpretation. The author concludes by suggesting fourteen principles for citing ambiguity in future Classical Syriac corpus-by-corpus lexica and other ancient-language lexica to which they may be applicable.

Falla, Terry, and Wido van Peursen. “The Particles ܓܶܝܪ and ܕܷܝܢ in Classical Syriac: Syntactic and Semantic Aspects.”

Wido van Peursen and Terry Falla[47] address some questions related to ܓܶܝܪ and ܕܷܝܢ in Classical Syriac, which it is usual to study together because they share some characteristics of syntactic behaviour, and also because of the similar ways they have been treated in Syriac grammars and lexica. They argue that a syntactic analysis of these particles can go beyond the general observation that they usually come after the first word of the clause. Defining the rule for the position of these particles more precisely decreases the number of exceptions to the rule considerably. The parallels with the syntactic behaviour of Greek γάρ and δέ, too, can be described more precisely than in terms of “after the first word.” As for the semantic analysis of these particles, they show that the formal and syntactical equivalence of Syriac ܓܶܝܪ and ܕܷܝܢ and Greek γάρ and δέ should not lead to the assumption that they are also semantic and functional equivalents, an assumption that is pervasive not only in Syriac grammars and dictionaries, but also in modern editions of the Greek New Testament.

Falla, Terry and Beryl Turner, “The History, Aims, and Ethos of the International Syriac Language Project.”

This essay was conceived in gratitude for all that its two authors have gained from the International Syriac Language Project (ISLP) and its participants since its inception eighteen years ago and is offered as a celebration of the handing over of the project’s leadership to Richard Taylor as Conference Coordinator and Wido van Peursen and Michael Theophilos as Series Editors. It tells the story of the ISLP: its origins, its evolution, its aims to research pertinent theoretical and applied issues, be interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary, meet annually, and publish a peer-reviewed series of its symposia and other linguistic research. From the beginning, the values of the project were as important to its participants as the quality of the research it envisaged. For this reason, a substantial segment is devoted to the ISLP’s ethos. The second last section entitled “The quest for methodologies for ancient-language lexica—towards the future” is given a place because of its centrality in the research of contemporary ancient-language lexicography, which has remained the heartbeat of the project. The essay ends with an account of the ISLP’s published research. This account provides a summary of every article and monograph published in ISLP’s series Perspectives on Syriac Linguistics (PoSL) and its successor Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages (PLAL) and of monographs in preparation.[48] A list of all articles and monographs arranged according to subject precedes the bibliography, which also cites under the author’s name every article published in PoSL and PLAL. This website contains the essay itself under History of the ISLP, and the information on articles and authors is under Publications.

Forbes, A. Dean. “A Tale of Two Sitters and a Crazy Blue Jay.”

Dean Forbes[49] recounts the history of his forty-plus-years collaboration with Frank Andersen creating a grammatical analysis of the Biblical Hebrew corpus, beginning with Dean’s access to Hewlett Packard’s first computer at his workplace, Hewlett Packard Laboratories, in 1970, and tracing the development of computers and of the project which culminated in The Hebrew Bible: Andersen-Forbes Phrase Marker Analysis (2009), Biblical Hebrew Grammar Visualized (2012). He concludes with an outline of their ongoing work investigating discourse analysis, and lessons learned on the way.

Forbes, A. Dean. “On Dating Biblical Hebrew Texts: Sources of Uncertainty/Analytic Options.”

Dean Forbes[50] delves into the use and misuse of statistical methods in the dating of texts of the Hebrew Bible. He states at the outset that his article has a complex, controversy-laden goal: to prepare the way for statistical approaches designed to lead to either 1) an inference of the temporal relations holding among Hebrew Bible text portions, or 2) a conclusion that such inferences are not reliably possible using statistical methods. First, he examines the sources of statistical uncertainty in dating ancient Hebrew texts and discusses how to cope with them. Then, he delineates the options that must be considered in the study of temporal relations among the texts in the Hebrew Bible. Both sections also include considerations which are relevant to the diachronic study of Hebrew as a language. He concludes with a detailed and useful summary of his study and a brief statement of future tasks.

Forbes, A. Dean. “Squishes, Clines, and Fuzzy Signs: Mixed and Gradient Categories in the Biblical Hebrew Lexicon.”

Dean Forbes[51] introduces us to the use of statistics in his computational analysis of the syntax of the Hebrew Bible. He examines the problem with traditional views of part-of-speech classes and proposes a solution for dealing with non-discrete syntactic classes. He begins with a discussion of the central problem that he addresses. Traditional views of part-of-speech classes see them as hard, “either/or” categories. Several analysts have shown that morphologically-defined parts of speech may overlap (are “mixed”) and may be heterogeneous (“gradient”). How, Forbes asks, are we to detect and deal with such mixed and gradient classes so that a coherent taxonomy can be devised?  The rest of the article proposes a solution that involves a four-stage process: 1. We first use contextual information about the classes to compute their distances apart. 2. We then use this set of distances to produce a hierarchical clustering of the classes, on the basis of which we define a set of super-classes. 3. We use the distances among these super-classes to infer a one-dimensional continuum along which the super-classes are ordered. 4. Based on the class squish ordering, we plot each text token in a context space in which mixed and gradient classes are discernible. The article concludes by outlining directions for future work.

Forbes, A. Dean. “How Syntactic Formalisms Can Advance the Lexicographer’s Art.”

Beginning with a discussion of the changing role of linguistic theory in lexicography, Dean Forbes[52]  examines how lexicography can be advanced by: (i) introducing carefully nuanced syntactic categories, (ii) taking the idea underlying the hierarchical lexicon seriously, and (iii) customizing the presentation of syntactic information. All of this is in keeping with the observation that in current syntactic theories lexical entries have evolved from simple pairings of phonological forms with grammatical categories into elaborate information structures.

Forbes, A. Dean. “Distributionally-Inferred Word and Form Classes in the Hebrew Lexicon: Known by the Company They Keep.”

Dean Forbes[53] analyses the distributions of the words and the word segments of biblical Hebrew by using the rigorous computational methods of unsupervised pattern recognition (all explained in the paper). This allows the inference of part-of-speech classes. The classes are in most cases gratifyingly homogeneous, but some contain perplexing constituents.

Forbes, A. Dean. “The Proper Role of Valency in Biblical Hebrew Studies.”

Dean Forbes[54] ponders preliminary questions concerning the criteria needed for determining the meaning of biblical verbs and the expectations of those who wish to examine verbs and syntax. He provides a counterbalance to the growing optimism concerning valency studies as necessarily promising. He agrees with Herbst that “valency is one of the more messy aspects of language” and pinpoints several theoretical issues that remain unsolved and potentially unsolvable, arguing that valency approaches have their limitations.

Gardner, Anne E. “Shedding Light on the Introduction to Daniel’s Vision in Chapter 7 (Dan 7:1b–2a).”

The ancient versions of Dan 7:1b–2a have many similarities yet differ in a number of ways. 4QDan^b appears to support the MT for the most part but that should not be viewed as decisive for the priority of the MT. The OG presents a simpler text and in a comparison with the MT is shown to contain an earlier version in 7:1b–c although there is likely to be a later elaboration in OG 7:2a. The difficulties apparent in the MT can be resolved through a recognition that it is building upon a Vorlage and through its inner-textual and intertextual links. The differences between the OG and MT of Dan 7:1b–2a and two key passages to which they allude may provide an indication of the time of composition of each version.

Goldstein, Binyamin Y. “The Jewish Recension of a Syriac Version of Aesop’s Fables.”

Binyamin Goldstein[55] examines the Jewish recension of a Syriac collection of Aesop’s Fables as a case study for the broader topic of the literary interaction between writers of Syriac and dialects of Jewish Aramaic in the second half of the first millennium CE. Along with Targum Proverbs and a handful of other texts, this recension attests to interaction between Jews and Syriac Christians in the literary sphere. Its mixed dialect further informs on the context of the Syriac text’s assimilation into Jewish literature. The Jewish recension is also important as another witness to the Syriac text. The implications of such a project, says the author by way of conclusion, will significantly reshape our conception of how religious minority groups interacted with one another under the Abbasid Caliphate.

Hackett, Jo Ann, and John Huehnergard. “On Revising and Updating BDB.”

Jo-Ann Hackett and John Huehnegaard[56] report on revising and updating the etymological information in the Hebrew-English lexicon of Brown-Driver-Briggs (BDB). They note that it is still a standard resource for many, but is seriously in need of updating, especially with regard to its virtually unmatched etymological information. This article includes the plans for the revision of BDB and an account of the resources to be employed to update its etymological information—regarded as a fundamental part of any lexicon of an ancient and incompletely attested language such as Biblical Hebrew. The editors hope that the result will be a new Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew lexicon which will be the lexicon of choice for scholars and students for the foreseeable future.

Hofstra, Johan D. “Towards a New Critical Edition and Translation of Ishoʿdad of Merw’s Commentary on the Gospel of John with an Identification of his Sources.”

Johan D. Hofstra[57] provides an extensive study of the sources used in Ishoʿdad of Merw’s commentary on the Gospel of John, and demonstrates the need for a new critical edition of of Ishoʿdad’s commentary. Building on the work of Margaret Dunlop Gibson, Hofstra attempts to make the text of Ishoʿdad’s commentary—frequently so intractable and complicated—more accessible to the readers of the present time. Hofstra furthers research on two fronts: the identification of  Ishoʿdad’s  sources and the best manuscripts to use for a new critical edition.

Hunter, Erica C.D. “Syriac Manuscripts from Turfan: Public Worship and Private Devotion.”

Erica Hunter[58] selects a number of manuscripts from the Syriac fragments found at the monastery near Bulayïq to discuss public and private dimensions of worship at Turfan. Notable amongst these many liturgical manuscripts is MIK III 45, which consists of 61 folios, dated to the 8^th–9^th centuries, and is a witness to the liturgy in the first millennium, shortly after Isoyabh III compiled the Hudra. As for private devotion, several prayer-amulets that name various saints suggest that the terminology and commemoration of saints in the selected manuscripts are prototypes of prayer-amulets that were used by the Syriac Christian communities who dwelt in the Hakkari region of northern Kurdistan until the opening decades of the 20^th century. These include the fragments SyrHT 152, SyrHT 99, SyrHT 330, and SyrHT 102, n.364–365. The latter two are presented with text, transliteration, and translation. The selected manuscripts respectively demonstrate the public and private dimensions of faith that took place at the remote outpost of Turfan in the medieval period, where the heritage of the Church of the East was robustly maintained.

Hunziker-Rodewald, Regina. “The Gesenius/Brown-Driver-Briggs Family.”

Regina Hunziker-Rodewald presents two articles. The first[59] discusses the Gesenius/Brown-Driver-Briggs family of Hebrew lexica: the Hebrew-German Handwörterbuch of Wilhelm Gesenius (Ges¹⁷,1915; Ges¹⁸, in preparation)[60] and the Hebrew-English Brown-Driver-Briggs lexicon (BDB; 1906/1907),[61] which is historically dependent on Ges¹⁷. The author compares these three lexica, noting that the main distinction between Ges¹⁷ and BDB is the alphabetical arrangement in the former and the root-based arrangement in the latter, and that their internal arrangements also differ considerably. Ges¹⁸ has the advantage of marking non-attested roots. It is rewriting the etymological section of each entry, is providing Semitic data other than Aramaic in transcription, and including Ugaritic, Dead Sea Scrolls, Ben Sira, and inscriptional evidence. It is recording all biblical word forms, augmenting syntactic constructions, and adding relevant literature, and much more.

Hunziker-Rodewald, Regina. “KAHAL—The Shorter HALAT: A Hebrew Lexicon Project in Progress.”

Hunziker-Rodewald[62] focuses on the Swiss KAHAL project (Kurze Ausgabe Hebräisches und aramäisches Lexikon). This project aims to reduce the five-volume, 1,800 page HALAT (Hebräisches und aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament),[63] which William Holladay translated into a concise non-scientific English edition in 1971,[64] to a single volume of 1,000 pages. While in principle all of the lexical entries of HALAT will be adopted, some lemmas, for example, conjectures, will be omitted. Etymologies will be shortened and updated, references will be checked, and errors corrected. The project is based at the University of Berne.

Irons, Charles Lee. “Is ‘Righteousness’ a Relational Concept in the Hebrew Bible?”

Charles Lee Irons[65] examines the relational concept of the term for righteousness (צֶדֶק, צְדׇקֳה) in the Hebrew Bible as it has been contrasted to righteousness (δικαιοσύνη and iustitia) in Hellenistic contexts, where it is a norm concept. In the spirit of James Barr, he raises some doubts about the widely held scholarly assumption regarding the relational interpretation of “righteousness” in the Hebrew Bible, which, due to Hermann Cremer’s novel lexical theory (1899), has exercised a profound influence in both Old Testament and New Testament scholarship throughout the twentieth century to the present. Irons argues that both Hebrew and Greek broadly use their respective terms with two main meanings, an ethical meaning, as conformity to a moral standard, and a judicial usage in terms of the justice of the judge or king exercising iustitia distributiva. There may in fact be many differences between Greek and Hebrew thought, and these worldview differences may be reflected in a whole range of lexical differences as well, but the alleged contrast between a Hebraic/relational concept of “righteousness” and a Greek/normative or distributive concept of “righteousness” is not one of them.

Joosten, Jan. “Hebrew Thought and Greek Thought in the Septuagint: Fifty Years after Barr’s Semantics.”

In a paper that visits the work of James Barr fifty years after the publication of his book The Semantics of Biblical Language, Jan Joosten[66] discusses, with illustrative examples from the Septuagint, two aspects of Barr’s refutation of Thorleif Bowman’s views on the way language regulates thought. One aspect is the concept of translatability, which strongly relativizes the notion that Hebrew thought can only be expressed in the Hebrew language. Translators find, and the Septuagint demonstrates, says Joosten, that everything can be translated, even although in some cases it means doing violence to the target language. The other aspect is that the concept of frame in cognitive linguistics strengthens the idea that there is a link between language and thought. Even where Hebrew words find ready equivalents in Greek, the associative implications of the words may be rather different. Thus, although associative meaning is difficult to define when one is dealing with ancient languages, some examples suggest that the Greek translators, although ostensibly faithful to the source text, did indeed inject Hellenistic thoughts into the translation. Having explored these two aspects, Joosten concludes that a vast domain is still open for investigation.  Barr’s criticisms should be taken to heart, but far from discouraging us from probing the relation between language and thought they should spur us on to explore this issue further.

Juckel, Andreas. “Towards an Analytical Concordance of the Harklean New Testament.”

Andreas Juckel[67] provides scholars for the first time with the text of the Harklean margin to the Pauline corpus along with detailed analysis, and lays the foundation for an analytical concordance of the Harklean New Testament and its possible inclusion in a future Syriac lexicon. He provides illustrative examples throughout his presentation. The first part of the article justifies the dominance of the translational perspective through demonstrating the accessibility of the version’s Greek model, by an analysis of the translator’s philological principles. The second part determines the non-Peshitta vocabulary of the Harklean for possible inclusion in a future Syriac lexicon. The article concludes with a twenty-five-page glossary of Syriac words that are employed in the Harklean Pauline corpus, but that do not occur in the Peshitta version.

Juckel, Andreas. “Should the Harklean Version Be Included in a Future Lexicon of the Syriac New Testament?”

Andreas Juckel[68] argues for the inclusion of unique Harklean vocabulary in a future lexicon of the Syriac New Testament and lists eighteen pages of such words. This vocabulary would enrich the lexicon’s semantic analysis and facilitate a comparison between Harklean and non-Harklean Syriac-Greek correspondences. Without burdening the proposed future lexicon too much with an anticipated analytical concordance, selected Harklean readings would provide sufficient lexical and comparative information. To employ the Harklean in this way would reduce comparison to the version’s characteristic lexical features and leave the Peshitta to serve as the corpus’s unrivalled point of comparison. The reduction of comparison to characteristic lexical features would contribute to the incorporation of the diachronic aspects inherent in the corpus of different versions.

Kaltner, John. “The Koehler-Baumgartner Family.”

John Kaltner[69] examines the Koehler-Baumgartner family of lexica, which is designated KB, and includes Koehler-Baumgartner, Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros (KBL 1^st edition, 1953); KBL 2^nd edition (1958); HALAT (Hebräisches und aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament, 1967–1996); and HALOT (The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, translated and revised version of HALAT, 1994–2000). Two key factors should be kept in mind when evaluating the work. The first is indicated by the designation “family”, which calls attention to the multiple editions in which the lexicon has appeared and to the many changes in editors throughout the project’s history. The second is that KB first appeared and developed further during a period of unprecedented scholarly activity by lexicographers and Bible scholars, who had at their disposal recently discovered texts and new research tools that had a tremendous impact on their work. As a result, KB should be considered as several different lexica rather than as a single one that remained more or less constant from one edition to the next. That there is a strong family resemblance among the editions is undeniable, but this article explains the differences that emerged as the project evolved. A brief history of the family is followed by an overview of the main strengths and weaknesses of the lexicon, as identified by reviewers and other users. Finally, a description of the revision of HALOT (A Companion to HALOT, edited by Chaim Cohen, Ben-Gurion University), which is currently under way, is discussed in reference to the use of Arabic.

Keulen, Percy S.F. van. “Feminine Nominal Endings in Hebrew, Aramaic and Syriac: Derivation or Inflection?”

Percy van Keulen[70] proposes that the linguist would be served greatly if lexemes of feminine substantives were included in Hebrew, Aramaic and Syriac dictionaries. In order to determine the forms of these lexemes, we need to know the precise extent to which feminine substantives are subjected to derivation and inflection. In particular, the nature of the feminine ending in the absolute state singular is of importance. His article makes suggestions as to how one may distinguish between feminine derivational and inflectional endings in order to determine the form of the lexeme.

Keulen, Percy S.F. van. “Lexicographical Troubles with the Cardinal Numerals 1–20 in the Aramaic of the Targumim and in Classical Syriac.”

Percy van Keulen’s study[71] on numerals examines the cardinal numerals 1–20 in the Aramaic of the Targumim and in Classical Syriac, and their inadequate and sometimes inconsistent treatment in lexica. He argues that a coherent lexicography of these numerals is feasible if their morphology is taken as the point of departure and advocates a lexeme-oriented approach in which each lemma corresponds to a unique lexeme. The article ends with a summary of a morphological approach in a lexicon to the numerals 1–20, which distinguishes between the numerals 3–10; 11–19; the teen word in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Syriac; and 20 in Syriac, Aramaic, and Hebrew.

Kiffiak, Jordash. “Amazement, Fear and Being Troubled in Responses in Gospel Miracle Stories: Establishing the Semantic Contours of the Terms and their Interrelations.”

Jordash Kiffiak[72] analyses the semantic content of Greek terms that denote fear, amazement, and being troubled. The definition of words in these three sub-domains within the semantic domain of “attitudes and emotions” in Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains are compared with the definitions of Frederick W. Danker et al.’s A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (BDAG). He concludes that the lexicographer can meaningfully distinguish categories of fear, amazement, and being troubled in the portions of text he considers, and that there is a greater semantic distance between amazement and the other two terms that there is between those two terms.

King, Daniel. “Remarks on the Future of a Syriac Lexicon Based upon the Corpus of Philosophical Texts.”

Daniel King[73] discusses issues arising from the proposal to produce a specialist lexicon of philosophical terminology in Syriac. He shows that while this proposal is conceived within the framework of the ISLP corpus-based lexica project, it also presents its own peculiar difficulties. In his discussion of some of these problems, King offers criteria for the inclusion of texts, a tentative list of texts that the corpus could include, and asks whether the corpus should include translations. He concludes that although the research of the International Syriac Language Project has largely worked out a good lexical methodology, we still face the problem that only some of the relevant philosophical material is readily available in published editions. A lexicon that lacks the inclusion of unpublished texts would suffer the same problems as the old lexica. Moreover, lexicographer and user require a good background in not only the Aristotelian texts, but also the Alexandrian commentary tradition that lies at the root of so much of the Syriac tradition. Arabic philosophy is also key to understanding the later authors. Nonetheless, King emphasizes that the field is wide open and is ready to be occupied.

Kiraz, George A. “Computing the Syriac Lexicon: Historical Notes and Considerations for a Future Implementation.”

George Kiraz[74] provides an account of the history of Syriac computational lexicography. He outlines previous projects known to him, where possible with reference to further technical descriptions. Projects, which he has personally been involved in, are described in more detail in order to document some of the work that has been done. He concludes with some remarks on the future implementation of a fuller Syriac electronic lexicon.

Kiraz, George A. “Lexica and Grammars in the Late Syriac Tradition: The Three Bishops: Audo, Manna, and David.”

George Kiraz[75] describes the lexical and grammatical works of eastern scholars in the second half of the nineteenth century and the early decades of the twentieth century. He examines three authors and their works: Thoma Audo and his Syriac-Syriac lexicon ܣܝܡܬܐ ܕܠܫܝܐ ܣܘܪܚܐ ܒܝܕ ܬܐܘܡܐ ܐܘܕܘ ܡܝܛܪܦܘܠܝܛܐ ܕܐܘܪܡܝ ܒܡܘܨܠ (Simta d-leshana suryaya, Treasure of the Syriac Language), 1897, Awgen (Eugene) Manna and his Syriac-Arabic lexicon (ܗܕܝܐܬ ܕܠܫܢܐ ܐܪܡܝܐ ܟܠܕܝܐ / Vocabulaire chaldéen-arabe / دﻟﻴﻞ اﻟﺮاﻏﺒﻴﻦ ﻓﻲ ﻟﻐﺔ اﻵراﻣﻴﻴﻦ, 1900, reprinted under the title ܠܟܣܝܩܘܢ ܟܠܕܝܐ-ܐܪܒܝܐ Chaldean-Arabic Dictionary / قاموس كلداني-عربي, 1975), and Clemens Joseph David and his grammar al-lumʿa al-shahiyya fi naḥw al-lugha al-suryaniyya (1879), which is the largest grammar produced in the East after the time of Bar Ebroyo. It was published posthumously in a second revised edition under the title Grammatica Aramaica seu Syriaca (1896).

Levinskaja (Akhunova), Olga. “The Ass and the Lyre: On a Greek Proverb.”

Olga Levinskaja (Akhunova)[76] explores the syntactic structure, meaning, and origin of an Ancient Greek proverbial expression about an ass and a lyre (ὂνος λύρας). The syntax of this proverbial expression seems to be very simple, but the lack of a verb or preposition makes its meaning uncertain. What is this proverbial ass doing with the musical instrument? Is he listening? Or playing? Or something else? An answer depends on the syntactic motivation of the genitive case λύρας.  Since ancient poets and writers were not unanimous in their understanding of this proverb, Levinskaja suggests that the phrase ὂνος λύρας was not the result of a reduction of a full-fledged proverb, but originally appeared in the Greek language in precisely this form, and then, in the course of time, developed full proverbial contexts. This could have happened as a result of translation or calquing from another language, a possibility that is supported by the fact that the image of an ass with a lyre is not a characteristic of Greek classical tradition, but is highly popular in the tradition of the Ancient Near East, where asses with strings are present in the iconography of Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Syria.

Levinsohn, Stephen H. “Therefore’ or ‘Wherefore’: What’s the Difference?”

Stephen Levinsohn[77] compares and contrasts the most common inferential connectives in the Greek New Testament and, in particular, the Pauline Epistles (including those whose authorship is disputed): οὖν, διό, ἄρα and ἄρα οὖν, ὥστε, and διὰ τοῦτο. The function of each connective is described, not “according to emphasis,” but in terms of the unique cognitive “constraint” on interpretation that it conveys. The paper concludes with suggestions as to the constraints associated with three other inferential connectives: τοιγαροῦν, τοίνυν, and διόπερ.

Levinsohn, Stephen H. “Constituent Order in and Usages of Εἰμί—Participle Combinations in the Synoptics and Acts.”

Stephen Levinsohn[78] discusses various combinations of εἰμί and a participle in the Gospels and Acts. Typically, εἰμί precedes the participial clause. On occasions there is a subject, with the default position of the subject being placed after εἰμί. The author examines the factors that may cause variations from this order. He also observes that Greek copular imperfects are less dynamic than their simple counterparts. In the few cases where a copular imperfect at the beginning of a pericope presents an event in progress, the effect is to background that event in relation to what follows.

Lewis, Timothy Martin. “Lexemes with High Risk of Infection: Methodology for Examining Low-Frequency Lexemes.”

Timothy Lewis[79] proposes principles and a methodology for examining, from a semantic perspective, low-frequency lexemes in the Peshitta New Testament, particularly lexemes in the Gospels with parallel contexts in another Gospel. While many low-frequency lexemes require attention, he focuses on one example, the Peal ܚܒܛ in Mk 9:18, 20 in the Gospel episodes of the so-called “epileptic boy” (Mt 17:14–20//Mk 9:14–29//Lk 9:37–43). The study ends with a suggested revised entry for the Peal ܚܒܛ in Mk 9:18, 20 in KPG. Lewis advocates the avoidance of any gloss that infers a “convulsive (and unintentional ‘epileptic’) supposition,” and provides the glosses and definition, “beat against the ground, beat to the ground, beat on the ground, beat the life out of, knock down against the ground; assault repetitively, attack, of a non-speaking spirit’s frequent and sudden attacks upon a boy that were intended to take his life.”

Li, Tarsee. Greek Indicative Verbs in the Christian Palestinian Aramaic Gospels: Translation Techniques and the Aramaic Verbal System.

Tarsee Li[80] surveys the employment of Christian Palestinian Aramaic (CPA) imperative constructions and related forms in light of the translation of Greek imperatives and related forms. The study reports the extent to which the employment of different types of directive expressions in CPA corresponds to different types of directive expressions in Greek. As in other forms of Aramaic, the CPA imperative is restricted to affirmative directives, whereas negative directives are expressed not with imperatives, but with the imperfect.  However, in both affirmative and negative directives, the aspectual distinction between the Greek aorist and the present is seldom reflected in CPA translation. This fact is evidence that the latter is not simply “translation Aramaic.” The CPA bears witness to native Aramaic syntax. Notwithstanding some unavoidable Greek influence, the CPA translation of the Gospels is one that would be understood as Aramaic by native speakers of the language. This further confirms the same observation made in Li’s monograph Greek Indicative Verbs in the Christian Palestinian Aramaic Gospels: Translation Techniques and the Aramaic Verbal System (PLAL 3). Li also makes other important observations, amongst them that, although the aspectual distinction between the Greek aorist and present in the imperative mood is only seldom reflected in CPA translation, the existence of a potential aspectual distinction in CPA directives is shown by the fact that the expression imperative of ܗܘܝ + participle only occurs in the translation of the Greek present imperative, never of the aorist imperative or subjunctive. This stands in clear contrast to the translation of the indicative verbs, where the aspectual distinction between the aorist and imperfect indicatives is usually reflected in the CPA translation.

Li, Tarsee. “Greek Imperatives and Corresponding Expressions in Christian Palestinian Aramaic.”

Tarsee Li’s Greek Indicative Verbs in the Christian Palestinian Aramaic Gospels: Translation Techniques and the Aramaic Verbal System (PLAL 3) is based on the recognition that virtually all Christian Palestinian Aramaic (CPA) texts consist of translations, so that one cannot adequately discuss its verbal system without considering translation technique. His study consists of an examination of the translation of Greek indicative verbs in the CPA Gospels and its implications for the understanding of the CPA verbal system. The presence of textual, stylistic, and/or idiomatic variation in an otherwise literal translation provides useful clues concerning both the nature of the CPA translation and the function of CPA verbs. Hence, Li discusses the evidence afforded by translation technique concerning the syntax and morphosyntax of the CPA verbal system in light of synchronic and diachronic comparative evidence.

Liljeström, Marketta. “Observations on the Mode of Translation in the Syrohexapla.”

Marketta Liljeström[81] discusses some translational features of the Syrohexapla of 1 Samuel supported by examples of the use of Greek loanwords, transcriptions, proper nouns, and certain syntactic features. The focus is on the consistency of translation correspondences, which for lexicographers presents interesting points of comparison with the Harklean version. The author notes that the Syrohexaplaric material in 1 Samuel is very fragmentary and has been preserved only in lectionaries and quotations. The only passages of substantial length are from the second, seventh, and twentieth chapters. Liljeström first compares the lectionary passages with Syrohexaplaric manuscripts in order to evaluate how carefully the lectionaries repeat the original translation. Secondly, she gives attention to the method of translation. This is accomplished by examining not only the mechanical relationship with the Greek text, but also comparing the passages in question with other available Syriac versions—for 1 Samuel this means the Peshitta and the version of Jacob of Edessa.

Loopstra, Jonathan. “Exploring Patterns of Accentuation in BL Add. MS 12138 (the East-Syrian ‘Masora’): Perspectives and Possibilities.”

Jonathan Loopstra[82] demonstrates the value of one ninth-century Syriac manuscript (BL Add. 12138) for enriching our understanding of patterns of pitch variation between Syriac words. Previously, such patterns of “accentuation” (or “prosody” or “intonation”) had been largely undeveloped or under-researched. Loopstra provides a lexicographical application showing that normally an accent is placed above or below ܒܪܡ, except when ܒܪܡ is followed by ܕܝܢ. In these cases, ܕܝܢ usually receives the accent from ܒܪܡ.

Loopstra, Jonathan. “Reading the Bible with the Taḥtāyā ḏa-Ṯlāṯā.”

Jonathan Loopstra[83] researches the use of a Syriac scribal sign consisting of three dots called taḥtāyā ḏa-tlāṯā, which is attested in East-Syrian biblical manuscripts from the seventh century onwards. His examination of biblical passages demonstrates that this mark appears in passages that seem to indicate a strong pause as well as possible “rhetorical” interpretations such as a sense of address, petition, or conditional statements. Although the interpretations of later post-eleventh-century Syriac grammarians vary, there is a general agreement that the taḥtāyā ḏa-tlāṯā include both a pausal and “rhetorical” function. While it is unclear how exactly the presence of a taḥtāyā ḏa-tlāṯā would have impacted the intonation of a passage, there are hints that this mark was reserved mainly for character dialogue where dramatic readings would have been possible. However, we should keep in mind that the taḥtāyā ḏa-tlāṯā is only one of a number of reading marks that began to appear in East-Syrian manuscripts after the seventh century and for which there are as yet very few comprehensive studies. Together, these reading marks represent the vestiges of a system of biblical oral recitation that scribes attempted to pass down for a millennium alongside the biblical text.

Loopstra, Jonathan. “The Syriac Reading Dot in Transmission: Consistency and Confusion.”

Readers of printed Syriac Bibles are often unaware that biblical manuscripts include a variety of punctuation and ‘reading’ dots not present in modern published editions. Rather than being haphazard, as has sometimes been suggested, there is some evidence that East-Syrian scribes were cognisant of this system of ‘dotology,’and they even struggled to pass on this often-confusing arrangement. This paper will provide an overview of the present state of research into the reception of these dots in East-Syrian biblical manuscripts. In so doing, we will look at attempts by Syriac scribes to correct or clarify potentially ambiguous dots. We will also examine ways that the presence of these reading dots in Syriac biblical texts may have influenced the interpretation of these texts.

Loopstra, Jonathan.  “The Patristic ‘Syriac Masora’ as a Resource for Modern Syriac Lexicography.”

Jonathan Loopstra[84] provides an overview of several features present in the patristic collections in manuscripts of the “Syriac Masora” (large compilations of vocalized and diacritically marked sample texts from the Syriac translations of the Bible and the Greek Fathers of the Church). The principal interest of the compliers of these “masoretic” mansucripts was the proper reading, or orthoepy, of the writings of the Greek fathers in Syriac translation. Many words in these manuscripts were vocalized and marked because, it seems, they may have been difficult for the post-tenth-century reader to understand or pronounce. “Non-masoretic” words in marginal notations indicate that these manuscripts were developed to be used with the glossating tradition present in West Syrian mansucripts of the writings of the Fathers. As pedagogical aids to reading and as some of the earliest complete systems of Syriac vocalization and diacritics, these “masoretic” manuscripts hold particular value for our understanding of the development of the Syriac language between the ninth and thirteenth centuries. They are a helpful resource for modern Syriac lexicography.

Lund, Jerome A. “Soundings with regard to Verbal Valency in the Peshitta Old Testament.”

Lund’s study[85] of verbal valency in the Peshitta Old Testament examines the prepositions used with Peal ܕܚܠ fear, Pael ܨܠܝ pray, and Peal ܗܘܐ the verb to be. Lund’s computer-assisted analysis allows him, for example, to distinguish between ܕܚܠ ܡܢ fear someone and ܕܚܠ ܥܠ fear for someone as well as observing the compound preposition ܡܢ ܩܕܡ used with ܕܚܠ fear from before [someone or something]. Lund also suggests several other points for lexicographers to consider, such as the order of presentation for a verbal lexical entry.

Lund, Jerome A. “The Hebrew as a Text-Critical Tool in Restoring Genuine Peshitta Readings in Isaiah.”

Jerome A. Lund[86] demonstrates how Hebrew manuscripts of Isaiah can assist in making emendations to the extant Peshitta Syriac text of Isaiah that represent the original translation. Lund argues that the underlying Masoretic text can be used with discretion as a text-critical tool to restore genuine Peshitta readings. No Syriac biblical manuscripts collated for the Leiden scientific edition contain any of these readings.

Lund, Jerome A.  “Aphrahat’s Use of Ezekiel and its Value for the Textual Criticism of the Peshitta.”

The fourth century father Aphrahat, writing some two centuries after the translation of the Old Testament Peshitta, consciously integrated the text of Ezekiel into the fabric of his argument rather than being concerned with rigid citation. He employed various strategies in citing the text of Ezekiel: the combining of elements from similar verses together, condensing the text, substituting synonyms, replacing a rhetorical question with a statement, changing the word order, adjusting the person to fit his context (for example, changing the third person of the verb to second person), and paraphrase. As a result, the text of Ezekiel cited by Aphrahat should not be used independently to restore Peshitta readings. Further, the text of Ezek 16:55 underwent textual corruption within the transmission of the Demonstrations, not within the transmission of the Bible. Moreover, for homiletical purposes, Aphrahat plays on the root of the verb in Ezek 13:10 to give it a different meaning than found in the Bible.

Miller-Naudé, Cynthia L. and Jacobus A. Naudé. “A Re-examination of Grammatical Categorization in Biblical Hebrew.”

Cynthia Miller-Naudé and Jacobus Naudé[87] confront the question of grammatical categorization in Biblical Hebrew. They begin by alerting the reader to the reality that linguistic analysis is necessarily and unavoidably perspectival—how do we identify the data, how do we segment the data, how do we describe the data, and how do we categorize them as tokens of one linguistic phenomenon or another? They survey approaches to categorization in generative grammar, functional grammar, cognitive grammar, and in typological linguistics. They then attempt a grammatical categorization of טוֹב, which includes both the adjective and the verbal homonyms. The analysis includes both morphosyntactic and distributional factors.

Morgenstern, Matthew. “A New Mandaic Dictionary: Challenges, Accomplishments, and Prospects.”

Matthew Morgenstern,[88] who is preparing a new Mandaic dictionary, reviews the history of Mandaic studies, especially Mandaic lexicography. He focuses mainly on the Mandaic dictionary of Drower and Macuch,[89] which, for five decades, has been an essential resource for Mandaic and comparative Aramaic lexicography. Without this work, the study of Mandaic, a south-eastern dialect of Aramaic that is closely related to Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmud and post-Talmudic rabbinic literature, may not have survived and enjoyed its current revival.  However, by contemporary standards this iconic dictionary can no longer meet the needs of Aramaic lexicography. The aim of this new project is to build on the accomplishments of Drower and Macuch, while bringing Mandaic lexicography up to date, and providing the foundation for another half-century of Mandaic research.

Morrison, Craig E. “The hwā qātel and hwā qětīl Constructions in the Peshitta Old Testament.”

Craig Morrison[90] divides his investigation of the hwā qātel and hwā qĕtīl constructions into two sections. The first asks how the Peshitta renders Hebrew periphrastic constructions: does it mirror the Hebrew construction or does it adjust the construction to suit Syriac idiom? The second studies the uses of the hwā qātel/qětīl construction in the entire Peshitta Old Testament as renderings of a Hebrew exemplar. Is it possible, the author asks, to describe the Peshitta’s use of this construction so that a hwā qātel that expresses only a past durative aspect can be distinguished from one expressing deontic modality? The article provides criteria for distinguishing between the two, especially in the Peshitta, where the preference is to place hwā after the participle even if the Hebrew has the participle in the last position. This study of the translator’s use of hwā qātel witnesses to the elegance of the language of the Peshitta Old Testament version. By employing this construction, the translator made explicit the deontic modality in Syriac that remains implicit in the Hebrew text.

Morrison, Craig E. “The Peshitta in Jacob of Serugh: The Particle ܠܡ and Other Citation Markers.”

Craig Morrison[91] examines the particle ܠܡ and other citation markers that purportedly introduce citations of the Peshitta text in Jacob of Serugh’s Memra on David and Goliath and the Memra on David and Uriah. Recognizing the complexity of the problems involved in his study, Morrison utilizes the discipline of intertextuality to study the strategies that an author employs to introduce a text into his own composition. Morrison’s study focuses on the perspective of the author (as opposed to the text itself, or the reader): what are the “signs” in the memra that alert the audience to a biblical reference? He concludes that Jacob’s Bible is the Peshitta and summarizes the various functions of the particles in question. His summaries have the precision of lexical definitions. The particle ܠܡ, for example, is classified as a “presentative” when it alerts the audience to a biblical citation. When the exact biblical wording serves his argument, Jacob can cite the biblical text with precision. But what normally follows ܠܡ is Jacob’s rewriting of the biblical citation, his exegesis of it. Citation and interpretation merge. The same holds true for the citation that follows the expression ܐܟܡܐ ܕܟܬܝܒ  just as it is written.

Mot, Laurentiou. “When Hapax Legomena are Exegetically Important.”

There are a few hapax legomena in the NT which are exegetically relevant. The methodology of approaching these special cases considers the presuppositions the interpreter has concerning the topic of the text where the hapax appears. After this basic step, when there is no other comparative material and, especially, in the case of compound nouns, etymology is one important step forward, despite its limitations for the general study of semantics. Then, derivatives, syntax and determinatives, semantics and pragmatics represent various interpretative resorts based on which the NT hapaxes must be tackled. The more exegetically important a unique word is, the more complex the lexicographical study becomes. The research applies this methodology to one case study: the cultic term θυμιατήριον in Heb 9:4 and implies that a dictionary entry of an exegetically-relevant hapax legomenon in the NT may turn out to be quite painstaking and laborious.

Muraoka, T. “Brockelmann in English Guise.”

Takamitsu Muraoka[92] reviews Michael Sokoloff’s translation and update of Brockelmann’s Lexicon Syriacum (BLex; 2^nd ed., 1928), and declares it a “most welcome event for every Syriacist and Semitist”. With illustrative examples, he discusses what he considers to be the strengths and weaknesses of  Sokoloff’s A Syriac Lexicon (BSLex). For Muraoka, the most important and valuable contribution made by BSLex is its replacement of mere references in BLex with actual texts; “Sokoloff not only typed and keyed in tens of thousands of phrases or clauses or copied from a digitalised version, but he actually read them in their contexts.” “It is also wonderful,” says Muraoka, “to have BLex translated into a language nowadays more widely and easily understood.” Other assets are the elimination of many errors in BLex, including wrong references, and provision of the English translation of many quoted Syriac phrases and clauses.

However, he considers that the English translations of BLex’s Latin glosses are problematic: “[D]id Sokoloff and his team consider whether Brockelmann’s definitions and lexicographical analysis are correct?”  For reasons he details, Muraoka laments the loss of arrangement by root. He also questions the discarding of some data in BLex pertaining to etymology and comparative Aramaic/Semitic lexicography, and takes issue with the quoting of nouns and adjectives in their emphatic form rather than in their absolute form.[93]

Mushayabasa, Godwin. “Constructing a foundation for the study of the Old Testament quotes in the Old Syriac Gospels.”

Recent studies on Old Testament quotations in the Old Syriac Gospels have indicated that they were influenced by the Old Testament Peshitta, either directly or indirectly through the Diatessaron. The theory at present is mainly based on the identification of cases where a part of an Old Testament quotation in OSG has similarities with the parallel text in the Old Testament Peshitta rather than the quoted text in the Greek New Testament. However, the evidence for OTP influence on OSG is still flimsy and is liable to collapse under scrutiny. Hence the present paper is designed to provide a more solid basis upon which further study of OTP influence on OSG can rest. In doing so I investigate two aspects related to the OSG and GNT, which could help in assessing the nature of OT quoted texts in them: The first aspect will be to establish the general translation technique used by OSG translators. Knowledge of the OSG translation techniques will enable researchers to easily distinguish deviations in the translator’s text that are a function of the general translation technique of the whole text from those deviations that were caused by influence from secondary texts such as OTP or the Diatessaron. The second aspect will be to establish the nature of the philosophy of quoting scriptural sources among the gospel writers and translators of the first three centuries. From the results of that study, one will be able to have a general idea of how both the original author quoted scripture and how any subsequent translator would treat such quotations. In this study, the focus will lie mainly upon Matthew’s Gospel.

Naudé, Jacobus A., and Cynthia Miller-Naudé. “A Re-examination of Grammatical Categorization in Biblical Hebrew.”

Cynthia Miller-Naudé and Jacobus Naudé[94] confront the question of grammatical categorization in Biblical Hebrew. They begin by alerting the reader to the reality that linguistic analysis is necessarily and unavoidably perspectival—how do we identify the data, how do we segment the data, how do we describe the data, and how do we categorize them as tokens of one linguistic phenomenon or another? They survey approaches to categorization in generative grammar, functional grammar, cognitive grammar, and in typological linguistics. They then attempt a grammatical categorization of טוֹב, which includes both the adjective and the verbal homonyms. The analysis includes both morphosyntactic and distributional factors.

Pat-El, Na’ama. “The Function and Etymology of the Aramaic Particle Lm: A Re-examination.”

In her examination of the function and etymology of the particle lm (Official Aramaic particle לם and Syriac ܠܡ), Na’ama Pat-El[95] contests the commonly held assumption that the particle is a quotative marker, that is, that it functions as a marker introducing direct speech, and argues that no reconstruction should be attempted without fully understanding the various aspects of the form’s syntax and distribution. She concludes that lm is probably an emphatic adverb and that, considering its function in biblical quotations, it may have been used to mark the relative truth value the speaker attributes to the words. The article further shows that Kaufman’s etymology is not justified on phonological and morphological grounds. An alternative etymology is proposed.

Peláez, Jesús. “Contextual Factors in the Greek-Spanish Dictionary of the New Testament (DGENT).”

In introducing features of the new Greek-Spanish Dictionary of the New Testament (DGENT). Jesús Peláez[96] illustrates the importance in a lexicon of providing contextual factors in order to explain the different senses of a given word that arise when it enters a new context. Taking as example the entry βαπτίζω, the author shows grosso modo how this word is treated in other New Testament dictionaries and then compares this with its treatment in DGENT. In the second part of this contribution, Peláez proposes the way in which lexicography should advance and explores various types of contextual factors.

Peursen, Wido van. “Numerals and Nominal Inflection in Classical Syriac.”

Wido van Peursen[97] examines numerals in Classical Syriac that are inflected for gender (including the feminine, or perhaps pseudo-feminine forms), state (including some specialized usages of the emphatic state and the use of the construct state in combinations with a noun or suffix pronoun and as the first element of the numbers 11–19), and number (including the formation of the decades as plurals of the digits). He argues that Syriac and other forms of Aramaic numerals have some typical morphological and syntactic features that are related to the unique class of concepts that they represent. They share some features with nouns and others with adjectives, but the particular way in which they modify other nouns makes them a category sui generis.

Peursen, Wido van.“Inflectional Morpheme or Part of the Lexeme? Some Reflections on Verbs Beginning with ša- in Classical Syriac.”

Wido van Peursen[98] notes that Classical Syriac and other forms of Aramaic have verbs which contain a causative prefix ša–. The existing grammars treat them in various ways: some discuss them in their section of the binyan system as belonging to the Shaphel, an equivalent of the Aphel; others mention them in their description of the quadri-radical verbs. Similarly, some dictionaries list these verbs under the lemma of the tri-radical root, others consider ša– to be part of the lexemes and list them under the Shin. These treatments reflect differing views on the status of the alleged Shaphel-forms in Classical Syriac. Various questions arise: Was the ša– prefix taken to be a causative morpheme? Are there any signs that it has been productive in some stage of the history of Syriac or another form of Aramaic? What would be a proper treatment of these verbs in the Syriac lexicon within the framework of the ISLP? Peursen concludes that making a choice for either the lexeme approach or the verbal-stem interpretation and then applying that choice to all forms with the ša– element attested in Classical Syriac, would not do justice to the rich diversity of the phenomenon. He recommends that the lexicon provides some forms with the ša– prefix under the Shin and others under the tri-radical base, and that the criteria by which the lemmatization is done be improved. Any inconvenience that might arise from the decision that some forms with the ša– prefix appear under the Shin and others under the element that remains when the ša– prefix is omitted, can be overcome by the use of cross-reference.

Peursen, Wido van and Dirk Bakker. “Lemmatization and Morphological Analysis: The Case of ܗܝܡܢ in Classical Syriac.”

Wido van Peursen and Dirk Bakker[99] examine three interpretations of the Syriac verb ܗܝܡܢ, to believe: as a causative stem, as a quadrilateral verb, and as a Pai‘el.  They argue that because objections can be raised against interpreting ܗܝܡܢ as a causative Haph‘el or Aph‘el and it has an etymological rather than an inflectional relationship with the root ܐܡܢ, it is preferable to analyze it as a quadrilateral verb. For this reason, dictionaries should treat ܗܝܡܢ as a quadrilateral root.

Peursen, Wido van and Terry C. Falla. “The Particles ܓܶܝܪ and ܕܷܝܢ in Classical Syriac: Syntactic and Semantic Aspects.”

Wido van Peursen and Terry Falla[100] address some questions related to ܓܶܝܪ and ܕܷܝܢ in Classical Syriac, which it is usual to study together because they share some characteristics of syntactic behaviour, and also because of the similar ways they have been treated in Syriac grammars and lexica. They argue that a syntactic analysis of these particles can go beyond the general observation that they usually come after the first word of the clause. Defining the rule for the position of these particles more precisely decreases the number of exceptions to the rule considerably. The parallels with the syntactic behaviour of Greek γάρ and δέ, too, can be described more precisely than in terms of “after the first word.” As for the semantic analysis of these particles, they show that the formal and syntactical equivalence of Syriac ܓܶܝܪ and ܕܷܝܢ and Greek γάρ and δέ should not lead to the assumption that they are also semantic and functional equivalents, an assumption that is pervasive not only in Syriac grammars and dictionaries, but also in modern editions of the Greek New Testament.

Roig Lanzillotta, Lautaro. “The Greek-Spanish Dictionary of the New Testament (DGENT): Meaning and Translation of the Lexemes; Some Practical Examples.”

Lautaro Roig Lanzillotta[101]  introduces features of the new Greek-Spanish Dictionary of the New Testament (DGENT), and describes the method and purpose underlying DGENT. The first part of the article discusses the project from a theoretical standpoint and the second presents some examples that serve to illustrate two of the basic principles behind DGENT. On the one hand, there is the systematic distinction between meaning and translation. On the other hand, there is the construction of an entry by first establishing a semantic formula, semic development, and full definition that takes into account the semantic reality of the term.

Runge, Steven E. “Now and Then: Clarifying the Role of Temporal Adverbs as Discourse Markers.”

Steven Runge[102] employs prototype theory to clarify the roles of temporal adverbs as discourse markers by going beyond the tendency of treating them monolithically. Using New Testament examples of νῦν and τότε, he outlines principles for determining whether or not a temporal adverb is functioning as a marker within the discourse.

Runge, Steven E. “Redundancy, Discontinuity and Delimitation in the Epistle of James.”

Steven Runge[103] describes the discourse functions of semantically redundant nominative and vocative forms of direct address in the book of James. He studies the role they play in delimiting units within the text. He does not attempt to predict the usage of address forms, but rather to describe the apparent motivations for the usage and its effects. He gives particular attention to those instances where the usage is semantically redundant, where the addressees are already clearly identified. The study demonstrates that a “one-size-fits-all” explanation of direct address is unable to account adequately for the uses of nominative and vocative forms in the book of James. Although the semantic function of identifying the address is the most basic, it is not the most frequent, and therefore calls for an examination of the other possible functions.

Salvesen, Alison. “The User versus the Lexicographer: Practical and Scientific Issues in Creating Entries.”

Alison Salvesen[104] focusses on the needs of the various types of lexicon user, stressing that the needs of the majority of users, namely new learners of Syriac, should not be forgotten—a challenge that has frequently been referred to in subsequent discussions on creating lexical entries. A new lexicon, says the author, would have to be built up layer by layer, like a snowball, starting with the Gospels and then the New Testament, followed by other widely read texts such as the Peshitta Old Testament, Aphrahat, and Ephrem. Salvesen then turns her attention to several specific lexicographical issues, ending with the emphasis that the lexicon should be fully scientific while remaining as “user-friendly” as possible.

Salvesen, Alison. “The Lexicon of the Tabernacle Accounts in the Syrohexapla Version of Exodus.”

Alison Salvesen[105] examines the nature of the Syrohexapla’s renderings for items in the Tabernacle described in Exodus. She asks to what degree such terms in this early seventh-century CE “mirror translation” of Greek Scripture already existed in Syriac, and how consistent the translators were in using them. Her study illustrates something of the working methods of the ancient translators and their lexicographical experience.

Salvesen, Alison. “A User’s View of Michael Sokoloff, ed., A Syriac Lexicon: A Translation from the Latin: Correction, Expansion, and Update of C. Brockelmann’s Lexicon Syriacum (2009).”

Alison Salvesen[106] reviews Michael Sokoloff’s translation and update of Brockelmann’s Lexicon Syriacum (BLex; 2^nd ed., 1928), and says, “the result is certainly much more usable than its predecessor and represents an enormous contribution to Syriac studies” With illustrative examples, she discusses what she considers to be the strengths and weaknesses of  Sokoloff’s A Syriac Lexicon (BSLex). For Salvesen, its strengths include: not having to go via a Latin dictionary; its updating of abbreviations; the listing of entries in alphabetical order; the comparative philology section of entries and references to other Aramaic dialects as they serve to contextualize Syriac within a larger linguistic sphere; statistics about occurrences of words in various sources, though these do not include many texts published since Blex’s second edition; the inclusion of Syriac collocations; and CD-ROM listing lexemes in Syriac and English. Other assets are the elimination of many errors in BLex, including wrong references, and provision of the English translation of many quoted Syriac phrases and clauses.

However, the English translations of BLex’s Latin glosses are problematic. “Unfortunately, the translations of glosses in Latin are not wholly reliable, as they were generally rendered into English without regard to the Syriac they represented.” Salvesen also suggests a different handling of the inclusion of words found only in the Harklean version of the New Testament. She considers the use of the Estrangelo script and the East Syriac vocalisation rather than the Serto and West Syrian vowels is a disadvantage, as most beginner Syriacists start with the latter. As in the case of any other lexicon, says Salvesen, scholars should use BSLex in tandem with other dictionaries.

Sikkel, Constantijn J. “Lexeme Status of Pronominal Suffixes.”

Constantijn Sikkel[107] observes that researchers at the Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam and Leiden University have been using the standard dictionaries as reference works in their computer-assisted morphological analysis of biblical languages. This type of linguistic work makes somewhat different demands of a lexicon than the traditional philology does. One of the problems with using a classical lexicon for morphological analysis is that traditional dictionaries do not provide information on the pronominal suffix. There are a number of good reasons to regard the suffixes as lexemes rather than affixes: they have their own part of speech and their own grammatical functions of person, number, and gender. The enclitic personal pronouns would therefore deserve a place in the lexicon like the proclitic prepositions do. For computer-assisted textual analysis, it is desirable that a new standard dictionary be developed as an authority for the morphology.

Sim, Margaret G. “The Genitive Absolute in Discourse: More Than a Change of Subject.”

Margaret Sim[108] rethinks a significant function of the genitive absolute in Classical and Koine Greek. In addition to effecting cohesion in discourse, the genitive absolute has been viewed as giving background information as well as indicating a change of subject or “switch reference.” Sim disputes the latter as being a predominant function of this participial construction and discusses its role in the New Testament, Xenophon, and the papyri with reference to a modern theory of cognition, which claims to give principles for the way in which humans communicate with one another.

Sim, Margaret G. “An Examination of Metarepresentation as an Essential Feature of Written and Oral Communication.”

Margaret Sim[109] considers the concept of metarepresentation, or representation to use the non-technical term. At the heart of representing the thoughts of others is the concept of the transfer of thought to utterance. The utterance will then be enriched by the recovery of inferences that should lead the hearer or reader to an understanding of the communicative intention of the speaker or writer. Sim presents the position that the concept of (meta) representation is foundational for the understanding of figures of speech such as metaphor and irony. This concept claims to give a more satisfactory account of these tropes than traditional literary analysis. This is based on the notion that a metaphor loosely resembles the speaker’s thought or that of someone else. The use of an undetermined or “loose” expression may give rise to a wider and richer range of inferences for the hearer than a carefully explicit sentence. Recognizing the crucial part that representation plays in communication, Sim deals with speech boundaries, representation marked by the article τό, representation not morphologically marked, echoic speech, and ironic utterance. The study draws examples from the Discourses of Epictetus and the New Testament, including the Corinthian correspondence.

Stevenson, Paul S. “The Semantics of Syriac Motion Verbs in Exodus Chapters 1–19, Part II.”

Paul Stevenson[110] continues his semantic componential analysis of Syriac motion verbs in Exodus 1–19, covering the verbs of motion that limitations of space prevented him from including in his first article published in PoSL 5 (see §7.2.4). The study consists of the less common verbs in the corpus. As in the previous article, this study considers six case roles in the description of the semantics of each verb: actor, agent, patient, source, path, and goal. Other relevant semantic features are horizontal movement, vertical movement, speed, and boundary crossing. After his analysis of the semantics of Syriac verbs of motion, Stevenson investigates the equivalences between the roots and the forms (Peal, Pael, etc.) of the verbs in the Peshitta and the Masoretic text. He finds that the Peshitta employs the “cognate” form in Syriac to translate certain Hebrew forms, while it uses a non-cognate form to render other Hebrew forms. He concludes that semantic content rather than cognate equivalence guided the Syriac translators. Stevenson is confident that componential analysis will prove to be a valuable means of studying the entire range of Syriac vocabulary. Lexicography can usefully apply it to vocabulary in particular semantic domains in specific corpora as has been done in the present study.

Stevenson, Paul S. “The Semantics of Syriac Motion Verbs in Exodus Chapters 1–19.”

Paul Stevenson[111] offers a detailed semantic analysis of a large number of the motion verbs found in the text of the Peshitta to Exodus, chapters 1–19. It makes use of semantic componential analysis to elucidate precise shades of meaning of each verb and makes some helpful distinctions between near-synonyms. After analysing the semantics of the verbs studied, the article examines the equivalences between the roots and the forms (Peal, Pael, etc.) of the verbs in the Peshitta and the Masoretic text, to demonstrate that certain Hebrew forms are translated with the “cognate” form in Syriac, while other Hebrew forms are translated with a non-cognate form. His overall conclusion is that the Syriac translators were guided by semantic content and not by cognate equivalence.

Taylor, Richard A. “The Inclusion of Encyclopedic Information in Syriac Lexical Entries.”

Richard Taylor[112] argues for the inclusion of encyclopaedic information in future Syriac dictionaries. Most current Syriac dictionaries, he says, provide lexical coverage for a large and diverse quantity of Syriac literature. The extent of treatment for particular lexical items is of necessity limited by practical considerations of space and size. However, in the future Syriac lexicography will likely focus on detailed analyses of particular corpora of texts such as Ephrem, Aphrahat, or the Peshitta Old and New Testaments. Syriac dictionaries that specifically target such corpora will be able to provide a fuller analysis of lexical items as used throughout these texts. A desideratum is that future Syriac dictionaries include analysis of figurative language, as well as a limited amount of relevant encyclopaedic information for items that present significant interpretational difficulties. His essay illustrates the benefits of such an approach by considering the meaning of selected terms that are key to the interpretation of the book of Daniel. Taylor discusses four examples in Peshitta Daniel in relation to their Hebrew or Aramaic cognates: ܚܝܘܬܐ animal, ܕܟܪܐ ram, ܨܦܪܝܐ goat, and ܩܪܢܐ horn.

Taylor, Richard A. “Psalm 2 in Syriac: Issues of Text and Language.”

Richard Taylor[113] evaluates the Peshitta translation of Psalm 2 in terms of the alignment of its textual affinities and its translation techniques. While the Syriac text of the psalm essentially reflects a proto-Masoretic Vorlage, in several places it aligns with non-MT readings found also in the Septuagint. Hence, in these places either there is a shared exegetical tradition or the Septuagint has exercised influence on the Peshitta. Certain translation techniques in this Peshitta rendering suggest that in a few places the Syriac translator may not have chosen the best lexical equivalents to represent the meaning of the underlying Hebrew text. In this psalm, there is reason to think that the Peshitta translator at times followed textual variants known to him from the Old Greek version.

Theophilos, Michael P. “Prayer and the Papyri at Oxyrhynchus.”

Michael Theophilos[114] provides a comparative and structural analysis of Christian prayer at Oxyrhynchus, comparing his findings with an examination of the form and function of non-Christian prayers from the same period. He demonstrates a pervasive influence of similar non-Christian prayer formulae at the level of structure, syntax, and titular vocabulary. Finally, he refers to contemporaneous comparative Christian liturgical and individual prayers preserved on papyri from other locations, and suggests that the porous interchange of prayer formulations between Christian and non-Christian prayers at Oxyrhynchus is more broadly based and attested throughout Egypt and the Mediterranean world. More specifically, Theophilos’ comparison of a corpus of Christian prayers from Oxyrhynchus, including P. Oxy 407, 925, 1058, 1150, and 1926, to other non-Christian prayers, makes apparent that the former are effectively Christian counterparts to pagan petitions to the oracle. Such evidence is attested for other locales and this stylistic syncretism cannot, as such, be seen as a distinctive of Christian prayer at Oxyrhynchus.

Thompson, Anne. “The Lexicographic Editor and the Problem of Consistency.”

Anne Thompson[115] discusses the need for consistency in the production of dictionaries of classical languages, but begins her abstract by saying that achieving consistency through all entries of a large lexicon is a daunting task. With several writers working over a period of many years, there is inevitably the risk that different approaches will emerge. Editors sometimes work without being able to describe with any precision the theory of what they are doing and, even when there is a stricter methodology in place, this has often been transmitted orally without a written manual of instructions for writers or explanation for readers. In the case of Ancient Greek, a tradition of copying from earlier lexicons introduces further complications. A lexicon should be a scientific linguistic study of the vocabulary of the language, not just an exercise in translation of words along with freely worded commentary. Senses need to be correctly identified and then presented according to a layout and wording that is rigorously governed by identical principles in every similar case. Proper semantic analysis, along with rigorously scientific methods of presentation will help readers to read ancient texts at a level that is nearer to that of the native speaker. The benefits to be gained are a heightened understanding and appreciation of the literature and documents of the language. Lexicography, because of its practical nature, is a test bed for theory, and the two things should be linked, that is, semantic and theoretical studies on the one hand, and lexical studies and dictionaries on the other.

Turner, Beryl. “Lexicalizing the Syriac Preposition ܠܘܳܬ.”

As part of a wider study of prepositions, Beryl Turner[116] examines the preposition ܠܘܳܬ in the Peshitta Gospels, particularly where it co-occurs with a verb. Her aim is to devise a methodology for examining every occurrence of ܠܘܳܬ and creating a lexical entry that gives a readily accessible overview of the preposition and does justice to its many nuances of meaning as they are found in the Gospels. The study will assist in the preparation of the remaining volumes of KPG and ultimately in the compilation of a new comprehensive Syriac-English dictionary. The article concludes with a five-column lexical entry that distinguishes between ܠܘܳܬ with verbs of motion or orientation; with verbs of being or activity in a place or with a person; in a prepositional phrase indicating location in the vicinity of, near; in a prepositional phrase following expressions bestowing benefit from one person to another, indicating agent or patient; in constructions indicating possessor or agent; in non-verbal clauses; and with Peal ܐܡܪ of telling parables to people (only in Luke).

Turner, Beryl. “Analysis of the Syriac Particle ܟܰܝ.”

Beryl Turner[117] observes that our best comprehensive Classical Syriac lexica are more than a century old, and their lexicalization of words is often partial or outdated in their taxonomy, parts of speech, and syntactic and semantic analysis. So today’s reader of Classical Syriac often encounters in a text a word or syntagm with a function and/or meaning that is not cited in Syriac lexica, or, if it is, is either misleading or generalized to the extent that it is difficult to know whether it is applicable to the instantiation in question. To demonstrate this, she examines the grammatical classification, syntactic functions and meanings of the Syriac particle ܟܰܝ. Despite the particle being low in frequency, she demonstrates that in the Syriac Gospels alone, its uses and meanings go beyond those recorded in existing Syriac lexica. Turner analyses every occurrence of ܟܰܝ in its Syriac context in the Peshitta text and in relation to the Greek underlying it and ends her article with a proposed lexical entry based on the format of entries in KPG. The entry defines ܟܰܝ as an intensifying and/or exclamatory particle marking a heightened response that is usually in the form of a startled, puzzled, amazed, freighted or poignant rhetorical question or exclamation; it occurs only in direct or reported speech, and can be glossed with an expression that suits the situation. It is the second element in a phrase, and does not occur elsewhere in the Peshitta New Testament.

Turner, Beryl. “Who Commits Adultery with Whom, and Why it Matters in a Lexicon.”

Beryl Turner[118] observes that adultery committed by males can be distinguished, syntactically, from adultery committed by females. Turner argues that such an observation is relevant to include when writing a lexical entry for Syriac verbs with the root ܓܘܪ. She demonstrates that the transitive use of such Syriac verbs (by males) should be distinguished from other constructions mediated by prepositions and hence not all constructions can be glossed by the traditional intransitive construction “to commit adultery with.” Among the several points that Turner raises for the lexicographer in her conclusion, she notes that in her examination of the Peal, Pael, and Aphel ܓܘܪ she certainly had not expected the gender of the participants to be a vital clue to defining the semantic fields. Who knows, she asks, what other criteria may be essential for other lexemes in their various constructions?

Williams, Peter J. “On Matching Syriac Words with Their Greek Vorlage.”

Peter Williams[119] raises some issues of translation when comparing Syriac words with their Greek Vorlage. Syriac lexicographers approaching the New Testament must ask to what extent the Greek should guide their understanding of the Syriac. This paper dwells on some of the difficulties involved in matching Syriac words with Greek ones and also on some of the counter-intuitive or surprising results that the comparison of the Syriac and Greek leads us to. Examples are taken from the Old Syriac and Peshitta Gospels.

Williams, Peter J. “Alpha Privatives in the New Testament Epistles.”

Peter Williams’ paper[120] considers a particular feature of the Greek language that appears to have provided the Peshitta translators with some difficulty. Specifically, he considers the Greek alpha privative—a feature of lexical formation whereby the letter alpha (or alpha-nu) is prefixed to a Greek form and the form is thereby negated. This is especially common in the epistles, which in the article should be understood as referring solely to the 13-letter Pauline corpus.

Winther-Nielsen, Nicolai. “How to Classify Hebrew Verbs: Plotting Verb-Specific Roles.”

Nicolai Winther-Nielsen[121] illustrates a decision process developed for lexical decomposition. A database application called the Role Lexical Module plots predicates in the database of the Eep Talstra Centre for Bible and Computing at the Vrije Universiteit (http://lex.qwirx.com/lex/clause.jsp). His article presents the results of analyzing the 100 most frequent verbs in the basic (Qal) stem of Biblical Hebrew and classifies them according to the logical structure categories developed for Role and Reference Grammar.

Yampolskaya, Sonya. “Internationalisms in the Hebrew Press 1860s–1910s as a Means of Language Modernization.”

Sonya Yampolskaya[122] explores the development of the adaptation of international loanwords in Early Modern Hebrew based on Hebrew newspapers published in Russia during the period from the 1860’s to the 1910’s. The author shows that the basic patterns of adaptation of loanwords in what later became Modern Israeli Hebrew had been formed in East European and predominantly Russian Hebrew by the 1910’s. The image of language change that is reflected by the sources contradicts both traditional and revisionist general theories on the emergence of Israeli Hebrew.

Farina, Margherita. An Outline of Middle Voice in Syriac: Evidences of a Linguistic Category. Perspectives on Syriac Linguistics 6. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2011.

Margherita Farina’s An Outline of Middle Voice in Syriac: Evidences of a Linguistic Category (PoSL 6) presents a modern linguistic approach to the function of the Syriac et-verbal prefix. Based on a detailed analysis of a number of early Syriac texts, it proposes a unified account of the different values traditionally attributed to the Syriac et-stems. Farina views the data within a typologically comparative framework derived from a cross-linguistic study of middle voice conjugations.

Juckel, Andreas. Analytical Concordance to the Harklean Version. Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, in preparation.

King, Daniel. A. Merx, Historia Artis Grammaticae apud Syros: English Translation. Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, in preparation.

King, Daniel. A Lexicon of Syriac Philosophical Terms. Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, in preparation.

Knudsen, Ebbe E. Classical Syriac Phonology. Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages 7. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2015.

This book provides a description of Classical Syriac phonology based on fully vocalized biblical texts and the detailed comments by medieval Syriac grammarians.

In addition to a description of Syriac consonants and vowels (including vowel quantity and stress), there are chapters on the comparative Semitic background of Syriac phonology and the grammatical features of the pre-classical inscriptions, and comparison with both eastern and western varieties of Jewish Aramaic. The modern dialect of Turoyo is also examined, and two appendices discuss the traditional pronunciation of West Syriac and the pronunciation of Modern Literary Syriac, and offer a sketch of Turoyo phonology.

Meyer, Mark. A Comparative Dialectical Study of Genitive Constructions in Aramaic Translations of Exodus. Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages 2. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2012.

Mark Meyer’s A Comparative Dialectical Study of Genitive Constructions in Aramaic Translations of Exodus (PLAL 2) reveals important similarities and differences between five Aramaic dialects in the use of genitive constructions: the Syriac Peshitta, Targum Onkelos, three corpora of the Palestinian Targum, the Samaritan Targum, and fragments of a Christian Palestinian Aramaic translation of Exodus. Meyer argues that there are three primary Aramaic genitive constructions that translate the construct phrase in Hebrew: the construct phrase, the genitive adjunct phrase with d-, and the genitive phrase with d- anticipated by a possessive suffix on the head noun (cataphoric construction). Meyer finds that all the Aramaic dialects, except Samaritan Aramaic, use the adjunct genitive construction when the second member denotes the material composition of the first member.

Muraviev, Alexey. Syriac Nosological Lexicon: A Word-list of Diseases Occurring in Syriac Medical Texts with Greek and Arabic Parallels. Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, in preparation.

Pat-El, Na’ama. Studies in the Historical Syntax of Aramaic. Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages 1. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2012.

Na’ama Pat-El’s Studies in the Historical Syntax of Aramaic (PLAL 1) has two primary goals. The first goal is to give a historical comparative account of several syntactic patterns in the Aramaic dialects in order to locate syntactic differences between these dialects and to explain them, if possible. The second goal is primarily methodological: to prove the advantage and validity of syntax to historical Semitic linguistics and dialectology. In order to show the merits of historical syntax for comparative Semitic linguistics, Pat-El has chosen Aramaic as the main source of data. She explains that this choice is not random. The work focuses on the development of adverbial subordination, nominal modifiers and direct speech marking, as well as reviewing changes through language contact and drift.

Price, Todd L. Structural Lexicology and the Greek New Testament: Applying Corpus Linguistics for Word Sense Possibility Delimitation Using Collocational Indicators.

Todd L. Price’s Structural Lexicology and the Greek New Testament moves beyond a traditional view of dictionary definitions to show how an analysis of large corpora of Hellenistic Greek can advance our understanding of lexical semantics. Price traces the development of corpus linguistics as used in dictionary making and demonstrates how this approach can be applied to Greek-English lexica, with special emphasis on defining words in context by disambiguating their possible meanings. Price includes numerous case studies in the Greek New Testament applying the method to exegetically problematic texts.

Taylor, David G.K. An Annotated Bibliography of Printed Syriac Lexica. Perspectives on Syriac Linguistics 2. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, in preparation.

[1] James K. Aitken, “Context of Situation in Biblical Lexica,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography III, PoSL 4, 181–201.

[2] James K. Aitken, “Other Hebrew Lexica: Zorell and Alonso Schoekel,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography III, PoSL 4, 251–64.

[3] M. O’Connor, “Semitic Lexicography: European Dictionaries of Biblical Hebrew in the Twentieth Century,” in S. Isre’el, ed., Semitic Linguistics: The State of the Art at the Turn of the 21st Century (IOS 20; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2002), 203.

[4] Valeriy Alikin, “Preventing Drunkenness in the Christian Gathering: Hints from The Graeco-Roman World and the New Testament,” in From Ancient Manuscripts to Modern Dictionaries, PLAL 9, 331–45.

[5] Mor Polycarpus Augin Aydin, “The Introduction to Awgen Manna’s Lexicon,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography II, PoSL 3, 165–71.

[6] Mor Polycarpus Augin Aydin, “Qlido d-Leshono―Key of Language: A Comprehensive Syriac Lexicon by Abbot Yuyakim of Tur Islo,” in From Ancient Manuscripts to Modern Dictionaries, PLAL 9, 173–78.

[7] Published by St Augin Monastery, P.K. No 25, Nosaybin, Turkey. Email St.-Augin-monastery@hotmail.org.

[8] Audo’s Syriac-Syriac Lexicon: ܣܝܡܬܐ ܕܠܫܝܐ ܣܘܪܚܐ ܒܝܕ ܬܐܘܡܐ ܐܘܕܘ ܡܝܛܪܦܘܠܝܛܐ ܕܐܘܪܡܝ ܒܡܘܨܠ, reprinted as Simta d-leshana suryaya (Mosul: 1897; reprinted 1978, 1979, 1985).

[9] Dirk Bakker, “Lemma and Lexeme: The Case of Third-Alaph and Third-Yodh Verbs,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography III, PoSL 4, 11–25.

[10] Wido van Peursen and Dirk Bakker, “Lemmatization and Morphological Analysis: The Case of ܗܰܝܡܶܢ in Classical Syriac,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography IV, PoSL 5, 73–80.

[11] Reinier de Blois, “New Tools and Methodologies for Biblical Lexicography,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography III, PoSL 4, 203–16.

[12] Reinier de Blois, “Semantic Domains for Biblical Greek: Louw and Nida’s Framework Evaluated from a Cognitive Perspective,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography III, PoSL 4, 265–78.

[13] Blois, “The Semantic Structure of Biblical Hebrew,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography V, PoSL 7, 3–20.

[14] Reinier de Blois, “Where Syntax and Semantics Intersect: The Story of שׁלח,” in Reflections on Lexicography, PLAL 4, 115–24.

[15] Blois, “Where Syntax and Semantics Intersect,” 118.

[16] Sebastian P. Brock, “Syriac Lexicography: Reflections on Sources and Resources,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography I, PoSL 1, 195–208.

[17] Cyrill von Buettner, “A Few Notes Concerning the Reading of הסתרתי  in the Great Isaiah Scroll (Isa 50:6b),” in From Ancient Manuscripts to Modern Dictionaries, PLAL 9, 201–12.

[18] Marilyn E. Burton, “Cognitive Methodology in the Study of an Ancient Language: Impediments and Possibilities,” in From Ancient Manuscripts to Modern Dictionaries, PLAL 9, 213–25.

[19] Jeff Childers, “Embedded Oracles: Sortilege in a Syriac Gospel Codex,” in Contemporary Examinations of Classical Languages, PLAL 8, 167–85.

[20] Clines, “How my (Lexicographical) Mind Has Changed.”

[21] A ninth volume, The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, IX: English–Hebrew Index; Word Frequency Table, was published in 2016.

[22] David J. A. Clines, “Towards a Science of Comparative Classical Hebrew Lexicography,” in From Ancient Manuscripts to Modern Dictionaries, PLAL 9, 227–45.

[23] John A. Cook, “Valency: The Intersection of Syntax and Semantics,” in Contemporary Examinations of Classical Languages, PLAL 8, 53–66.

[24] Marie-Louise Craig, “Pioneers and ‘No Through Roads’: The Story of the Early Hebrew-English Lexicons,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography V, PoSL 7, 21–42.

[25] Marie-Louise Craig, “Take One Hebrew Lexicon, Add Fresh Theology, and Mix Well: The Impact of Theology on Hebrew-English Lexicons,” in Reflections on Lexicography, PLAL 4, 147–210.

[26] John Parkhurst, An Hebrew and English Lexicon, Without Points: to this work is prefixed a methodical Hebrew grammar, without points (London: Faben, 1762; seven further editions were published from 1778–1823).

[27] David Levi, Lingua sacra in Three Parts (3 vols.; London: Justins, 1785–1788).

[28] Christopher Leo, A Hebrew Lexicon to the Books of the Old Testament: Including the Geographical Names and Chaldaic Words in Daniel, Ezra, etc. by D. Wilhelm Gesenius (2 vols.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1825–1828).

[29] Samuel Lee, A Lexicon, Hebrew, Chaldee, and English: Compiled from the Most Approved Sources, Oriental and European, Jewish and Christian (London: Duncan and Malcolm, 1840 and 1844.)

[30] Frederick W. Danker, “Moving Beyond Borders: Thoughts of a Greek Lexicographer,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography IV, PoSL 5, 1–20.

[31] Frederick W. Danker, “A Linguistic-Cultural Approach to Alleged Pauline and Lukan Christological Disparity,” in Reflections on Lexicography, PLAL 4, 243–64.

[32] Keith Dyer, “Basileia or Imperium? Rome and the Rhetoric of Resistance in the Revelation to John,” in From Ancient Manuscripts to Modern Dictionaries, PLAL 9, 346–64.

[33] Janet W. Dyk, “Desiderata for the Lexicon from a Syntactic Point of View,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography I, PoSL 1, 141–56.

[34] Janet W. Dyk, “A Synopsis-Based Translation Concordance as a Tool for Lexical and Text-Critical Exploration,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography III, PoSL 4, 161–79.

[35] Janet W. Dyk, “Form and Function in the Treatment of the Passive Participle,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography II, PoSL 3, 45–61.

[36] Janet W. Dyk, “The Peshitta Rendering of Psalm 25: Spelling, Synonyms, and Syntax,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography V, PoSL 7, 43–70.

[37] Janet W. Dyk, “The Hebrew and the Syriac Copula in Kings,” in Reflections on Lexicography, PLAL 4, 13–23.

[38] Janet W. Dyk, “The Cognate Verbs שים and ܣܘܡ in the Book of Kings: Similarities and Differences,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography IV, PoSL 5, 181–94.

[39] For further information regarding the Werkgroep Informatica database see above §7.2.3 PoSL 4 and notes 72 and 81.

[40] Janet W. Dyk, “How do Hebrew Verbs Differ? A Flow Chart of the Differences,” in Contemporary Examinations of Classical Languages, PLAL 8, 33–51.

[41] Mats Eskhult, “The use of Syriac ܗܐ in rendering Hebrew הִנֵה and Greek ἰδού or ἴδε in the Peshitta to Genesis and the Gospels,” in Contemporary Examinations of Classical Languages, PLAL 8, 113–19.

[42] Falla, “A Conceptual Framework.”

[43] Terry C. Falla, “Grammatical Classification in Syriac Lexica: A Syntactically Based Alternative,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography III, PoSL 4, 71–138.

[44] Terry C. Falla, “Metaphor, Lexicography and Modern Linguistics: Should Figurative Speech Figure in Future Ancient-Language Lexica?,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography IV, PoSL 5, 21–57.

[45] Terry C. Falla, “Reflections on Two Articles by Frederick W. Danker: Background and Appreciation,” in Reflections on Lexicography, PLAL 4, 3–4.

[46] Terry C. Falla, “What to Do About Citing Ambiguity in a Corpus-Specific Lexicon,” in From Ancient Manuscripts to Modern Dictionaries, PLAL 9, 9–59.

[47] Wido van Peursen and Terry C. Falla, “The Particles ܓܶܝܪ and ܕܷܝܢ in Classical Syriac: Syntactic and Semantic Aspects,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography II, PoSL 3, 63–98.

[48] To avoid unnecessary repetition in the footnotes, references to PoSL and PLAL volumes and their editors are provided in full only in the bibliography at the end of the article.

[49] Forbes, “A Tale of Two Sitters and a Crazy Blue Jay.”

[50] A. Dean Forbes, “On Dating Biblical Hebrew Texts: Sources of Uncertainty / Analytical Options,” in From Ancient Manuscripts to Modern Dictionaries, PLAL 9, 247–72.

[51] A. Dean Forbes, “Squishes, Clines, and Fuzzy Signs: Mixed and Gradient Categories in the Biblical Hebrew Lexicon,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography I, PoSL 1, 105–39.

[52] A. Dean Forbes, “How Syntactic Formalisms Can Advance the Lexicographer’s Art,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography III, PoSL 4, 139–58.

[53] A. Dean Forbes, “Distributionally-Inferred Word and Form Classes in the Hebrew Lexicon: Known by the Company They Keep,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography II, PoSL 3, 1–34.

[54] A. Dean Forbes, “The Proper Role of Valency in Biblical Hebrew Studies,” in Contemporary Examinations of Classical Languages, PLAL 8, 95–112.

[55] Binyamin Y. Goldstein, “The Jewish Recension of a Syriac Version of Aesop’s Fables,” in From Ancient Manuscripts to Modern Dictionaries, PLAL 9, 61–76.

[56] Hackett and Huehnergard, “On Revising and Updating BDB,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography III, PoSL 4, 227–34.

[57] Johan D. Hofstra, “Towards a New Critical Edition and Translation of Ishoʿdad of Merw’s Commentary on the Gospel of John with an Identification of his Sources,” in Contemporary Examinations of Classical Languages, PLAL 8, 201–38.

[58] Erica C.D. Hunter, “Syriac Manuscripts from Turfan: Public Worship and Private Devotion,” in From Ancient Manuscripts to Modern Dictionaries, PLAL 9, 77–96.

[59] Regina Hunziker-Rodewald, “The Gesenius/Brown-Driver-Briggs Family,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography III, PoSL 4, 219–26.

[60] Wilhelm Gesenius, Hebräisches und aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament, 17^th ed. Leipzig: Vogel, 1921; 18^th ed. Berlin: Springer, 1995–.

[61] Francis Brown, S.R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament with an appendix containing the Biblical Aramaic, based on the lexicon of William Gesenius as translated by Edward Robinson, 1907. Corrected ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1955.

[62] Regina Hunziker-Rodewald, “KAHAL—the Shorter HALAT,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography III, PoSL 4, 243–49.

[63] Ludwig Koehler, Walter Baumgartner, and Johann Jakob Stamm, et al., eds. Hebräisches und aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament. 5 vols. 3^rd ed. Leiden: Brill, 1967–1996.  

[64] William L. Holladay, ed. A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Based on the First, Second, and Third Editions of the Koehler-Baumgartner Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971.

[65] Charles Lee Irons, “Is ‘Righteousness’ a Relational Concept in the Hebrew Bible?” in Reflections on Lexicography, PLAL 4, 135–45.

[66] Jan Joosten, “Hebrew Thought and Greek Thought in the Septuagint: Fifty Years after Barr’s Semantics,” in Reflections on Lexicography, PLAL 4, 125–33.

[67] Andreas Juckel, “Towards an Analytical Concordance of the Harklean New Testament,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography II, PoSL 3, 99–154.

[68] Juckel, “Should the Harklean Version be Included?”

[69] John Kaltner, “The Koehler-Baumgartner Family,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography III, PoSL 4, 235–42.

[70] Percy S. F. van Keulen, “Feminine Nominal Endings in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Syriac: Derivation or Inflection?” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography III, PoSL 4, 27–39.

[71] Percy S. F. van Keulen, “Lexicographical Troubles with the Cardinal Numerals 1–20 in the Aramaic of the Targumim and in Classical Syriac,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography IV, PoSL 5, 169–80.

[72] Jordash Kiffiak, “Amazement, Fear and Being Troubled in Responses in Gospel Miracle Stories: Establishing the Semantic Contours of the Terms and their Interrelations,” in From Ancient Manuscripts to Modern Dictionaries, PLAL 9, 379–411.

[73] King, “Remarks on the Future of a Syriac Lexicon.”

[74] George Kiraz, “Computing the Syriac Lexicon: Historical Notes and Considerations for a Future Implementation,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography I, PoSL 1, 93–104.

[75] George A. Kiraz, “Lexica and Grammars in the Late Syriac Tradition: The Three Bishops: Audo, Manna, and David,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography II, PoSL 3, 155–63.

[76] Olga Levinskaja, “The Ass and the Lyre: On a Greek Proverb,” in From Ancient Manuscripts to Modern Dictionaries, PLAL 9, 413–21.

[77] Stephen H. Levinsohn, ‘“Therefore’ or ‘Wherefore’: What’s the Difference?” in Reflections on Lexicography, PLAL 4, 325–43.

[78] Stephen H. Levinsohn, “Constituent Order in and Usages of εἰμί: Participle Combinations in the Synoptics and Acts,” in From Ancient Manuscripts to Modern Dictionaries, PLAL 9, 423–41.

[79] Timothy Martin Lewis, “Lexemes with High Risk of Infection: Methodology for Examining Low-Frequency Lexemes,” in Reflections on Lexicography, PLAL 4, 25–62.

[80] Tarsee Li, “Greek Imperatives and Corresponding Expressions in Christian Palestinian Aramaic,” in From Ancient Manuscripts to Modern Dictionaries, PLAL 9, 97–108.

[81] Marketta Liljeström, “Observations on the Mode of Translation in the Syrohexapla,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography V, PoSL 7, 71–82.

[82] Jonathan Loopstra, “Exploring Patterns of Accentuation in BL Add. MS 12138 (the East-Syrian “Masora”): Perspectives and Possibilities,” in Contemporary Examinations of Classical Languages, PLAL 8, 139–65.

[83] Loopstra, “Reading the Bible with the Taḥtāyā ḏa-Ṯlāṯā.”

[84] Jonathan Loopstra, “The Patristic ‘Syriac Masora’ as a Resource for Modern Syriac Lexicography,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography IV, PoSL 5, 59–72.

[85] Jerome A. Lund, “Soundings with Regard to Verbal Valency in the Peshitta Old Testament,” in Contemporary Examinations of Classical Languages, PLAL 8, 19–32.

[86] Jerome A. Lund, “The Hebrew as a Text-Critical Tool in Restoring Genuine Peshitta Readings in Isaiah,” in Contemporary Examinations of Classical Languages, PLAL 8, 239–49.

[87] Cynthia Miller-Naudé and Jacobus Naudé, “A Re-examination of Grammatical Categorization in Biblical Hebrew,” in From Ancient Manuscripts to Modern Dictionaries, PLAL 9, 273–308.

[88] Matthew Morgenstern, “A New Mandaic Dictionary,” in From Ancient Manuscripts to Modern Dictionaries, PLAL 9, 139–71.

[89] Ethel S. Drower and Rudolf Macuch, A Mandaic Dictionary (Oxford: Clarendon, 1963).

[90] Craig E. Morrison, “The hwā qātel and hwā qĕtīl Constructions in the Peshitta Old Testament,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography V, PoSL 7, 83–106.

[91] Craig E. Morrison, “The Peshitta in Jacob of Serugh: The Particleܠܡ  and Other Citation Markers,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography IV, PoSL 5, 101–17.

[92] Takamitsu Muraoka, “Brockelmann in English Guise,” in Reflections on Lexicography, PLAL 4, 107–12.

[93] St. det. and st. abs. in Muraoka’s paper.

[94] Cynthia Miller-Naudé and Jacobus Naudé, “A Re-examination of Grammatical Categorization in Biblical Hebrew,” in From Ancient Manuscripts to Modern Dictionaries, PLAL 9, 273–308.

[95] Na’ama Pat-El, “The Function and Etymology of the Aramaic Particle Lm: A Re-Examination,” in Contemporary Examinations of Classical Languages, PLAL 8, 121–38.

[96] Peláez, “Contextual Factors in the Greek-Spanish Dictionary.”

[97] Wido van Peursen, “Numerals and Nominal Inflection in Classical Syriac,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography IV, PoSL 5, 155–67.

[98] Wido van Peursen, “Inflectional Morpheme or Part of the Lexeme? Some Reflections on Verbs Beginning with ša– in Classical Syriac,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography III, PoSL 4, 41–57.

[99] Wido van Peursen and Dirk Bakker, “Lemmatization and Morphological Analysis: The Case of ܗܰܝܡܶܢ in Classical Syriac,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography IV, PoSL 5, 73–80.

[100] Wido van Peursen and Terry C. Falla, “The Particles ܓܶܝܪ and ܕܷܝܢ in Classical Syriac: Syntactic and Semantic Aspects,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography II, PoSL 3, 63–98.

[101] Roig Lanzillotta, “The Greek-Spanish Dictionary.”

[102] Steven E. Runge, “Now and Then: Clarifying the Role of Temporal Adverbs as Discourse Markers,” in Reflections on Lexicography, PLAL 4, 303–23.

[103] Steven E. Runge, “Redundancy, Discontinuity and Delimitation in the Epistle of James,” in From Ancient Manuscripts to Modern Dictionaries, PLAL 9, 443–54.

[104] Alison G. Salvesen, “The User versus the Lexicographer: Practical and Scientific Issues in Creating Entries,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography I, PoSL 1, 81–92.

[105] Alison G. Salvesen, “The Lexicon of the Tabernacle Accounts in the Syrohexapla Version of Exodus,” in Contemporary Examinations of Classical Languages, PLAL 8, 187–99.

[106] Alison G. Salvesen, “A User’s View of Michael Sokoloff, ed., A Syriac Lexicon,” in Reflections on Lexicography, PLAL 4, 101–5.

[107] Constantijn J. Sikkel, “Lexeme Status of Pronominal Suffixes,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography III, PoSL 4, 59–67.

[108] Sim, “The Genitive Absolute in Discourse.”

[109] Margaret G. Sim, “An Examination of Metarepresentation as an Essential Feature of Written and Oral Communication,” in From Ancient Manuscripts to Modern Dictionaries, PLAL 9, 455–70.

[110] Paul S. Stevenson, “The Semantics of Syriac Motion Verbs in Exodus Chapters 1–19, Part II,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography V, PoSL 7, 107–19.

[111] Stevenson, “The Semantics of Syriac Motion Verbs in Exodus Chapters 1–19” [Part I].

[112] Richard A. Taylor, “The Inclusion of Encyclopedic Information in Syriac Lexical Entries,” in Reflections on Lexicography, PLAL 4, 83–99.

[113] Richard A. Taylor, “Psalm 2 in Syriac: Issues of Text and Language,” in From Ancient Manuscripts to Modern Dictionaries, PLAL 9, 179–97.

[114] Michael P. Theophilos, “Prayer and the Papyri at Oxyrhynchus,” in From Ancient Manuscripts to Modern Dictionaries, PLAL 9, 471–80.

[115] Anne Thompson, “The Lexicographic Editor and the Problem of Consistency,” in From Ancient Manuscripts to Modern Dictionaries, PLAL 9, 481–507.

[116] Beryl Turner, “Lexicalizing the Syriac Preposition ܠܘܳܬ,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography V, PoSL 7, 121–39.

[117] Beryl Turner, “Analysis of the Syriac Particle ܟܰܝ,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography IV, PoSL 5, 81–100.

[118] Beryl Turner, “Who Commits Adultery with Whom, and Why it Matters in a Lexicon,” in Contemporary Examinations of Classical Languages, PLAL 8, 1–18.

[119] Peter J. Williams, “On Matching Syriac Words with Their Greek Vorlage,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography I, PoSL 1, 157–66.

[120] Peter J. Williams, “Alpha Privatives in the New Testament Epistles,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography II, PoSL 3, 35–43.

[121] Nicolai Winther-Nielsen, “How to Classify Hebrew Verbs: Plotting Verb-Specific Roles,” in Contemporary Examinations of Classical Languages, PLAL 8, 67–94.

[122] Sonya Yampolskaya, “Internationalisms in the Hebrew Press 1860s–1910s as a Means of Language Modernization,” in From Ancient Manuscripts to Modern Dictionaries, PLAL 9, 309–27.