[Mova](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/) · [this page in HTML](https://mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/hbobook-obp0250-hornkohl-new-perspectives-biblical-rabbinic-hebrew/)

[home](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/) / [docs](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/) / [papers](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/) / [Ancient Hebrew](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/hbo/) / New Perspectives in Biblical and Rabbinic Hebrew

# New Perspectives in Biblical and Rabbinic Hebrew

**Authors:** [Aaron D. Hornkohl](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/authors/aaron-d-hornkohl/); [Geoffrey Khan](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/authors/geoffrey-khan/) (eds.); contributions by Koller, Posegay, Fassberg, Groen, Gabbay, Pat-El, Jeffay, Ariel, Isaksson, Robar, Sjörs, Khan, Hornkohl, Jones, van Wolde, Wilson, Edzard, Kingham, Locatell, Miller-Naudé and Naudé, van der Merwe, Notarius, Rendsburg, Wormser · **Year:** 2021 · **Venue:** Open Book Publishers (Cambridge Semitic Languages and Cultures 7) **Link:** [doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0250](https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0250) · library `hbobook-obp0250-hornkohl-new-perspectives-biblical-rabbinic-hebrew` · **Licence:** [CC BY 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) (Open Book Publishers)

[**21** citations](https://openalex.org/works?filter=cites:W3162616911) openalex-snapshot · 2026-10-14[**1** citations in our library](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/cited-by/hbobook-obp0250-hornkohl-new-perspectives-biblical-rabbinic-hebrew/) of the 140673 papers whose bibliographies we read[monograph](https://openalex.org/S4210236632)[licence](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

- [Publisher's page](https://doi.org/10.11647/obp.0250)
- [PDF](https://zenodo.org/api/records/19848752/files/703bbdfe-d984-4807-8a80-26a196cfd0f0_book.pdf/content)
- [DOI 10.11647/obp.0250](https://doi.org/10.11647/obp.0250)
- [OpenAlex](https://openalex.org/W3162616911)

**Authors (2)**

1. Aaron D. Hornkohl
2. Geoffrey Khan

Citations and author metrics from openalex-snapshot (2026-10-14); authors with the same name are not always told apart.

## What it is about

A volume of 24 articles on the writing, phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics and discourse of Biblical and Rabbinic Hebrew; the book prints an abstract of each, and this card is written from those abstracts and the contents. The largest group is on the verb: Isaksson argues that wayyiqṭol was pronounced without gemination in Standard Biblical Hebrew (the doubling is a Second Temple reading innovation) and that its "consecutive" sense comes from a plain clause type wa + verb-first; Robar shows that wayyiqṭol is absent from much archaic poetry and behaves as a freely chaining verb in Job; Sjörs finds that Late Biblical Hebrew lengthens the 1st-person wayyiqṭol as a rule, with unlengthened forms in fixed formulas; Khan argues that the discourse dependency of weqaṭal and wayyiqṭol is encoded in the forms, from their origin in dependent clauses; Hornkohl argues for an indicative future of yiqṭol, with minimal pairs of certainty vs obligation. Other articles: Wilson gives exhaustive conditions for when finite הָיָה appears; van Wolde reads the 78 nifʿal verbs of Genesis as middle voice with a resultative view; Jones tests the claim that predicate adjectives mark new and stative verbs given information; Miller-Naudé and Naudé classify left-dislocation types by their resumptive element; Ariel traces the shift from post-nominal הַהוּא to pre-nominal אותו in Mishnaic Hebrew; Pat-El treats plural -îm/-ôt comparatively; Fassberg shows later texts prefer long III-y imperatives in the derived stems; Kingham classifies the heads of 3,400 time phrases by collocation statistics; Locatell maps polysemous adverbial conjunctions; Jeffay treats proper names as predicates in construct.

## Ideas

- I1. A finite הָיָה table from Wilson's conditions: for each TAM environment, whether the copula must, may or cannot appear. In the trees it decides when a verbless clause and a הָיָה clause are the same frame, and when הָיָה is a full verb ("become, happen").
- I2. Discourse links by form: following Khan and Isaksson, a wayyiqṭol or weqaṭal clause gets a dependency link to the preceding clause in the event reader (sequence for wayyiqṭol, apodosis/consequence for weqaṭal), while a wa + non-verb-first clause breaks the chain. Robar's finding is the exception list: in Job and archaic poetry wayyiqṭol continues the tense of what precedes and is not read as a past preterite.
- I3. Left dislocation types as a check on the trees: a fronted constituent with a resumptive pronoun in the clause should get `dislocated`, and the subtypes (resumptive is subject, object, possessor; case agreement or not) are a small taxonomy for [Syntax: the clause and the sentence](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/languages/hbo/08-syntax/).
- I4. Diachronic markers for the CBH/LBH/Mishnaic chapter: the lengthened 1st-person wayyiqṭol (LBH standard), long III-y imperatives in derived stems (later texts), and the demonstrative shift הַהוּא → אותו (Mishnaic). Each is a countable feature over the trees with a stated expected direction.
- I5. Kingham's collocation profile for time-phrase heads as a reproducible POS test: words heading time phrases (יוֹם, עֵת, עַתָּה …) whose UPOS the converter assigns can be checked against their collocational behaviour, flagging nouns used adverbially.

## For Mova

I1 goes into [Syntax: the clause and the sentence](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/languages/hbo/08-syntax/) (verbless and copular clauses) and the frame reader; I2 into [Discourse: narrative, speech and the shape of a text](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/languages/hbo/09-discourse/) and the event chain in `world`; I3 into [Syntax: the clause and the sentence](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/languages/hbo/08-syntax/) and `tools/macula` (head rules for dislocation); I4 into [12. Biblical, Mishnaic and Modern Hebrew compared](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/languages/hbo/12-biblical-mishnaic-modern/) and `11-mishnaic.md`; I5 is a test for `tools/macula` on `treebanks/hbo/ptnk`.

Topics: [Discourse analysis](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/topics/discourse-analysis/)

## Cite

The paper itself, not this card. BibTeX from the library's record of the work. [DOI 10.11647/obp.0250](https://doi.org/10.11647/obp.0250)

```
@book{hornkohl2021new,
  title = {{New Perspectives in Biblical and Rabbinic Hebrew}},
  author = {Hornkohl, Aaron D. and Khan, Geoffrey},
  year = {2021},
  doi = {10.11647/obp.0250},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11647/obp.0250}
}
```

- [← previous Studies in Semitic Vocalisation and Reading Traditions](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/hbobook-obp0207-hornkohl-studies-semitic-vocalisation-reading-traditions/)
- [next → Points of Contact: The Shared Intellectual History of Vocalisation in Syriac, Arabic, and Hebrew](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/hbobook-obp0271-posegay-points-contact/)
- [↑ back to Ancient Hebrew](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/hbo/)

## References

159 references, 1 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

1. Andrason, Alexander. 2011. ‘The Biblical Hebrew Verbal System in Light of Grammaticalization—the Second Generation’. Hebrew Studies 53: 351–83. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1353/hbr.2011.0010)
2. ———. 2012. ‘Thermodynamic Model of the Biblical Hebrew Verbal System’. In Grammaticalization in Semitic, edited by See the exploratory study of Thompson and Lyle (2019). Domenyk Eades, 146–63. Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement Series 29. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%2E+2012%2E+%E2%80%98Thermodynamic+Model+of+the+Biblical+Hebrew+Verbal+System%E2%80%99%2E+In+Grammaticalization+in+Semitic%2C+edited+by+See+the+exploratory+study+of+Thompson+and+Lyle+%282019%29%2E+Domenyk+Eades%2C+146%E2%80%9363%2E+Journal)
3. ———. 2014. ‘Language Complexity: An Insight from Complex-System Theory’. International Journal of Language and Linguistics 2 (2): 74–89. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%2E+2014%2E+%E2%80%98Language+Complexity%3A+An+Insight+from+Complex%2DSystem+Theory%E2%80%99%2E+International+Journal+of+Language+and+Linguistics+2+%282%29%3A+74%E2%80%9389%2E)
4. ———. 2019. ‘Categorial Gradience and Fuzziness—The QWM Gram (Serial Verb Construction) in Biblical Hebrew’. In Ancient Text and Modern Readers: Studies in Ancient Hebrew Linguistics and Bible Translation, edited by Gideon R. Kotzé, Christian S. Locatell, and Jack A. Messarra, 100–26. Studia Semitica Neerlandica 71. Leiden: Brill. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%2E+2019%2E+%E2%80%98Categorial+Gradience+and+Fuzziness%E2%80%94The+QWM+Gram+%28Serial+Verb+Construction%29+in+Biblical+Hebrew%E2%80%99%2E+In+Ancient+Text+and+Modern+Readers%3A+Studies+in+Ancient+Hebrew+Linguistics+and+Bible+Translat)
5. Basson, Alec. 2006. Divine Metaphor in Selected Hebrew Psalms of Lamentation. Forschungen zum Alten Testament II/15. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Basson%2C+Alec%2E+2006%2E+Divine+Metaphor+in+Selected+Hebrew+Psalms+of+Lamentation%2E+Forschungen+zum+Alten+Testament+II%2F15%2E+T%C3%BCbingen%3A+Mohr+Siebeck%2E)
6. Bergen, Benjamin. 2015. ‘Embodiment’. In Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, edited by Ewa Dąbrowska and Dagmar Divjak, 10–30. Handbook of Linguistics and Communicative Science 39. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Bergen%2C+Benjamin%2E+2015%2E+%E2%80%98Embodiment%E2%80%99%2E+In+Handbook+of+Cognitive+Linguistics%2C+edited+by+Ewa+D%C4%85browska+and+Dagmar+Divjak%2C+10%E2%80%9330%2E+Handbook+of+Linguistics+and+Communicative+Science+39%2E+Berlin%3A+De+Gruyter+M)
7. Bivin, William E. 2017. ‘The Particle ם א and Conditionality in Biblical Hebrew Revisited: A Cognitive Linguistic Account’. PhD dissertation, Stellenbosch University. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Bivin%2C+William+E%2E+2017%2E+%E2%80%98The+Particle+%D7%9D+%D7%90+and+Conditionality+in+Biblical+Hebrew+Revisited%3A+A+Cognitive+Linguistic+Account%E2%80%99%2E+PhD+dissertation%2C+Stellenbosch+University%2E)
8. ———. 2018. ‘Building Spaces: Reevaluating the Particle ם א’. Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 44 (2): 1–21. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%2E+2018%2E+%E2%80%98Building+Spaces%3A+Reevaluating+the+Particle+%D7%9D+%D7%90%E2%80%99%2E+Journal+of+Northwest+Semitic+Languages+44+%282%29%3A+1%E2%80%9321%2E)
9. Bosman, Tiana. 2011. ‘Biblical Hebrew Lexicology and Cognitive Semantics: A Study of Lexemes of Affection’. PhD dissertation, Stellenbosch University. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Bosman%2C+Tiana%2E+2011%2E+%E2%80%98Biblical+Hebrew+Lexicology+and+Cognitive+Semantics%3A+A+Study+of+Lexemes+of+Affection%E2%80%99%2E+PhD+dissertation%2C+Stellenbosch+University%2E)
10. Burton, Marilyn E. 2017. The Semantics of Glory: A Cognitive Corpus-Based Approach to Hebrew Word Meaning. Studia Semitica Neerlandica 98. Leiden: Brill. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Burton%2C+Marilyn+E%2E+2017%2E+The+Semantics+of+Glory%3A+A+Cognitive+Corpus%2DBased+Approach+to+Hebrew+Word+Meaning%2E+Studia+Semitica+Neerlandica+98%2E+Leiden%3A+Brill%2E)
11. Bybee, Joan L., Revere Perkins, and William Pagliuca. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Bybee%2C+Joan+L%2E%2C+Revere+Perkins%2C+and+William+Pagliuca%2E+1994%2E+The+Evolution+of+Grammar%2E+Chicago%3A+The+University+of+Chicago+Press%2E)
12. Chau, Kevin D. 2011. ‘A Poetics for Metaphor in Biblical Hebrew Poetry’. PhD dissertation, University of Wisconsin at Madison. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Chau%2C+Kevin+D%2E+2011%2E+%E2%80%98A+Poetics+for+Metaphor+in+Biblical+Hebrew+Poetry%E2%80%99%2E+PhD+dissertation%2C+University+of+Wisconsin+at+Madison%2E)
13. ———. 2014. ‘Metaphor’s Forgotten Brother: A Survey of Metonymy in Biblical Hebrew Poetry’. Journal for Semitics 23 (2): 633–52. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%2E+2014%2E+%E2%80%98Metaphor%E2%80%99s+Forgotten+Brother%3A+A+Survey+of+Metonymy+in+Biblical+Hebrew+Poetry%E2%80%99%2E+Journal+for+Semitics+23+%282%29%3A+633%E2%80%9352%2E)
14. ———. 2015. ‘Interpreting Biblical Metaphors: Introducing the Invariance Principle’. Vetus Testamentum 65: 377–89. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%2E+2015%2E+%E2%80%98Interpreting+Biblical+Metaphors%3A+Introducing+the+Invariance+Principle%E2%80%99%2E+Vetus+Testamentum+65%3A+377%E2%80%9389%2E)
15. Claassen, Walter T. 1983. ‘Speaker-oriented Functions of kî in Biblical Hebrew’. Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 11: 29–46. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Claassen%2C+Walter+T%2E+1983%2E+%E2%80%98Speaker%2Doriented+Functions+of+k%C3%AE+in+Biblical+Hebrew%E2%80%99%2E+Journal+of+Northwest+Semitic+Languages+11%3A+29%E2%80%9346%2E)
16. Coleman, Stephen. 2018. The Biblical Hebrew Transitivity Alternation in Cognitive Linguistic Perspective. Abhandelungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 114. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. [↗](https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvcm4fj2)
17. Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Croft%2C+William%2E+2001%2E+Radical+Construction+Grammar%3A+Syntactic+Theory+in+Typological+Perspective%2E+Oxford%3A+Oxford+University+Press%2E)
18. Croft, William, and D. Allen Cruse. 2004. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Croft%2C+William%2C+and+D%2E+Allen+Cruse%2E+2004%2E+Cognitive+Linguistics%2E+Cambridge%3A+Cambridge+University+Press%2E)
19. Dąbrowska, Ewa. 2016. ‘Cognitive Linguistic Seven Deadly Sins’. Cognitive Linguistics 27 (4): 479–91. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=D%C4%85browska%2C+Ewa%2E+2016%2E+%E2%80%98Cognitive+Linguistic+Seven+Deadly+Sins%E2%80%99%2E+Cognitive+Linguistics+27+%284%29%3A+479%E2%80%9391%2E)
20. Dąbrowska, Ewa, and Dagmar Divjak (eds). 2015. Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Handbook of Linguistics and Communicative Science 39. Berlin: De Gruyter, Mouton. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=D%C4%85browska%2C+Ewa%2C+and+Dagmar+Divjak+%28eds%29%2E+2015%2E+Handbook+of+Cognitive+Linguistics%2E+Handbook+of+Linguistics+and+Communicative+Science+39%2E+Berlin%3A+De+Gruyter%2C+Mouton%2E)
21. Dancygier, Barbara (ed.). 2017. The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Dancygier%2C+Barbara+%28ed%2E%29%2E+2017%2E+The+Cambridge+Handbook+of+Cognitive+Linguistics%2E+Cambridge%3A+Cambridge+University+Press%2E)
22. Dancygier, Barbara, and Eve Sweetser. 2005. Mental Spaces in Grammar: Conditional Constructions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Dancygier%2C+Barbara%2C+and+Eve+Sweetser%2E+2005%2E+Mental+Spaces+in+Grammar%3A+Conditional+Constructions%2E+Cambridge%3A+Cambridge+University+Press%2E)
23. De Blois, Reinier. 2000. ‘Towards a New Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew Based on Semantic Domains’. PhD dissertation, Free University, Amsterdam. [↗](https://doi.org/10.28977/jbtr.2001.2.8.264)
24. ———. 2002. ‘A Semantic Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew’. In Current Trends in Scripture Translation, edited by Phil A. Noss, 275–95. Ann Arbor, MI: United Bible Societies. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%2E+2002%2E+%E2%80%98A+Semantic+Dictionary+of+Biblical+Hebrew%E2%80%99%2E+In+Current+Trends+in+Scripture+Translation%2C+edited+by+Phil+A%2E+Noss%2C+275%E2%80%9395%2E+Ann+Arbor%2C+MI%3A+United+Bible+Societies%2E)
25. ———. 2004. ‘Lexicography and Cognitive Linguistics: Hebrew Metaphors from a Cognitive Perspective’. Davar Logos 3 (2): 97–116. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%2E+2004%2E+%E2%80%98Lexicography+and+Cognitive+Linguistics%3A+Hebrew+Metaphors+from+a+Cognitive+Perspective%E2%80%99%2E+Davar+Logos+3+%282%29%3A+97%E2%80%93116%2E)
26. ———. 2007. ‘Word Classes in Biblical Hebrew: A Cognitive Approach’. Paper Read at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, 17–20 November, San Diego. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%2E+2007%2E+%E2%80%98Word+Classes+in+Biblical+Hebrew%3A+A+Cognitive+Approach%E2%80%99%2E+Paper+Read+at+the+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Society+of+Biblical+Literature%2C+17%E2%80%9320+November%2C+San+Diego%2E)
27. ———. 2009. ‘The Semantic Structure of Biblical Hebrew’. Paper Read at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, 21–24 November, New Orleans. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%2E+2009%2E+%E2%80%98The+Semantic+Structure+of+Biblical+Hebrew%E2%80%99%2E+Paper+Read+at+the+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Society+of+Biblical+Literature%2C+21%E2%80%9324+November%2C+New+Orleans%2E)
28. ———. 2014. ‘Where Syntax and Semantics Intersect: The Story of חלש’. In Reflections on Lexicography: Explorations in Ancient Syriac, Hebrew, and Greek Sources, edited by Richer A. Taylor and Craig E. Morrison, 115–24. Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages 4. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%2E+2014%2E+%E2%80%98Where+Syntax+and+Semantics+Intersect%3A+The+Story+of+%D7%97%D7%9C%D7%A9%E2%80%99%2E+In+Reflections+on+Lexicography%3A+Explorations+in+Ancient+Syriac%2C+Hebrew%2C+and+Greek+Sources%2C+edited+by+Richer+A%2E+Taylor+and+Craig+E%2E+)
29. ———. 2019. ‘Biblical Lexicography and the Semantic Structure of the Target Language: The Case of ךְ א’. ַׁ In Ancient Text and Modern Readers: Studies in Ancient Hebrew Linguistics and Bible Translation, edited by Gideon R. Kotzé, Christian S. Locatell, and Jack A. Messarra, 165–79. Studia Semitica Neerlandica 71. Leiden: Brill. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%2E+2019%2E+%E2%80%98Biblical+Lexicography+and+the+Semantic+Structure+of+the+Target+Language%3A+The+Case+of+%D7%9A%D6%B0+%D7%90%E2%80%99%2E+%D6%B7%D7%81+In+Ancient+Text+and+Modern+Readers%3A+Studies+in+Ancient+Hebrew+Linguistics+and+Bible+Translati)
30. De Joode, Johan. 2018. Metaphorical Landscapes and the Theology of the Book of Job: An Analysis of Job’s Spatial Metaphors. Vetus Testamentum, Supplements 179. Leiden: Brill. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004388871)
31. De Joode, Johan, and Hanneke van Loon. 2014. ‘Selecting and Analyzing Metaphors in the Hebrew Bible: Cognitive Linguistics and the Literary’. In Approaches to Literary Readings of Ancient Jewish Writings, edited by Klaas Smelik and Karolien Vermeulen, 39–76. Studia Semitica Neerlandica 62. Leiden: Brill. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004258563_004)
32. De Prenter, Janneke A. 2012. ‘The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of םרח in the Book of Joshua: A Cognitive Linguistic Approach’. In The Book of Joshua, edited by Ed Noord, 473– [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=De+Prenter%2C+Janneke+A%2E+2012%2E+%E2%80%98The+Contrastive+Polysemous+Meaning+of+%D7%9D%D7%A8%D7%97+in+the+Book+of+Joshua%3A+A+Cognitive+Linguistic+Approach%E2%80%99%2E+In+The+Book+of+Joshua%2C+edited+by+Ed+Noord%2C+473%E2%80%93)
33. Dirven, René. 2005. ‘Major Strands in Cognitive Linguistics’. In Cognitive Linguistics: Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction, edited by Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez and M. Sandra Peña Cervel, 17–68. Cognitive Linguistics Research 32. Berlin: De Gruyter. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197716.1.17)
34. Divjak, Dagmar, Natalia Levshina, and Jane Klavan. 2016. ‘Cognitive Linguistics: Looking Back, Looking Forward’. Cognitive Linguistics 27 (4): 447–63. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2016-0095)
35. Evans, Vyvyan. 2009. How Words Mean: Lexical Concepts, Cognitive Models, and Meaning Construction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Evans%2C+Vyvyan%2E+2009%2E+How+Words+Mean%3A+Lexical+Concepts%2C+Cognitive+Models%2C+and+Meaning+Construction%2E+Oxford%3A+Oxford+University+Press%2E)
36. ———. 2012. ‘Cognitive Linguistics’. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science 3 (2): 129–41. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%2E+2012%2E+%E2%80%98Cognitive+Linguistics%E2%80%99%2E+Wiley+Interdisciplinary+Reviews%3A+Cognitive+Science+3+%282%29%3A+129%E2%80%9341%2E)
37. ———. 2019. Cognitive Linguistics: A Complete Guide. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%2E+2019%2E+Cognitive+Linguistics%3A+A+Complete+Guide%2E+Edinburgh%3A+Edinburgh+University+Press%2E)
38. Falkum, Ingrid L., and Augustin Vicente. 2015. ‘Polysemy: Current Perspective and Approaches’. Lingua 157: 1–16. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Falkum%2C+Ingrid+L%2E%2C+and+Augustin+Vicente%2E+2015%2E+%E2%80%98Polysemy%3A+Current+Perspective+and+Approaches%E2%80%99%2E+Lingua+157%3A+1%E2%80%9316%2E)
39. Fauconnier, Gilles. 1997. Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridge: University Press. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139174220)
40. Fauconnier, Gilles, and Mark Turner. 2002. The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Fauconnier%2C+Gilles%2C+and+Mark+Turner%2E+2002%2E+The+Way+We+Think%3A+Conceptual+Blending+and+the+Mind%E2%80%99s+Hidden+Complexities%2E+New+York%3A+Basic+Books%2E)
41. Follingstad, Carl M. 2001. Deictic Viewpoint in Biblical Hebrew Text: A Syntagmatic and Paradigmatic Analysis of the Particle י כ ִּ (kî). Special Issue of Journal of Text and Translation. Dallas, TX: SIL. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Follingstad%2C+Carl+M%2E+2001%2E+Deictic+Viewpoint+in+Biblical+Hebrew+Text%3A+A+Syntagmatic+and+Paradigmatic+Analysis+of+the+Particle+%D7%99+%D7%9B+%D6%B4%D6%BC+%28k%C3%AE%29%2E+Special+Issue+of+Journal+of+Text+and+Translation%2E+Dallas%2C+TX%3A)
42. Geeraerts, Dirk. 1997. Diachronic Prototype Semantics. A Contribution to Historical Lexicology. Oxford: Clarendon. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198236528.001.0001)
43. ———. 2010. Theories of Lexical Semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%2E+2010%2E+Theories+of+Lexical+Semantics%2E+Oxford%3A+Oxford+University+Press%2E)
44. ———. 2015. ‘Lexical Semantics’. In Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, edited by Ewa Dąbrowska and Dagmar Divjak, 273–95. Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science 39. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%2E+2015%2E+%E2%80%98Lexical+Semantics%E2%80%99%2E+In+Handbook+of+Cognitive+Linguistics%2C+edited+by+Ewa+D%C4%85browska+and+Dagmar+Divjak%2C+273%E2%80%9395%2E+Handbooks+of+Linguistics+and+Communication+Science+39%2E+Berlin%3A+De+Gruyter+Mouto)
45. ———. 2016a. ‘The Sociosemiotic Commitment’. Cognitive Linguistics 27 (4): 527–42. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%2E+2016a%2E+%E2%80%98The+Sociosemiotic+Commitment%E2%80%99%2E+Cognitive+Linguistics+27+%284%29%3A+527%E2%80%9342%2E)
46. ———. 2016b. ‘Sense Individuation’. In The Routledge Handbook of Semantics, edited by Nick Riemer, 233–47. London: Routledge. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%2E+2016b%2E+%E2%80%98Sense+Individuation%E2%80%99%2E+In+The+Routledge+Handbook+of+Semantics%2C+edited+by+Nick+Riemer%2C+233%E2%80%9347%2E+London%3A+Routledge%2E)
47. _________. 2017. Conceptual Structure and Conceptual Variation. Cognitive Linguistics Classic Papers Series. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%5F%5F%5F%5F%5F%5F%5F%5F%5F%2E+2017%2E+Conceptual+Structure+and+Conceptual+Variation%2E+Cognitive+Linguistics+Classic+Papers+Series%2E+Shanghai%3A+Shanghai+Foreign+Language+Education+Press%2E)
48. Geeraerts, Dirk, and Herbert Cuyckens (eds). 2007. The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Geeraerts%2C+Dirk%2C+and+Herbert+Cuyckens+%28eds%29%2E+2007%2E+The+Oxford+Handbook+of+Cognitive+Linguistics%2E+New+York%3A+Oxford+University+Press%2E)
49. Glynn, Dylan, and Kerstin Fischer (eds). 2010. Quantitative Methods in Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-Driven Approaches. Cognitive Linguistic Research 46. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226423)
50. Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Goldberg%2C+Adele+E%2E+1995%2E+Constructions%3A+A+Construction+Grammar+Approach+to+Argument+Structure%2E+Chicago%3A+University+of+Chicago+Press%2E)
51. Gries, Stefan Th. 2015. ‘Polysemy’. In Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, edited by Ewa Dąbrowska and Dagmar Divjak, 472–90. Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science 39. Berlin: De Gruyton Mouton. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Gries%2C+Stefan+Th%2E+2015%2E+%E2%80%98Polysemy%E2%80%99%2E+In+Handbook+of+Cognitive+Linguistics%2C+edited+by+Ewa+D%C4%85browska+and+Dagmar+Divjak%2C+472%E2%80%9390%2E+Handbooks+of+Linguistics+and+Communication+Science+39%2E+Berlin%3A+De+Gruyton+M)
52. Gries, Stefan Th., and Anatol Stefanowitsch. 2006. Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-Based Approaches to Syntax and Lexis. Berlin: De Gruyter. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Gries%2C+Stefan+Th%2E%2C+and+Anatol+Stefanowitsch%2E+2006%2E+Corpora+in+Cognitive+Linguistics%3A+Corpus%2DBased+Approaches+to+Syntax+and+Lexis%2E+Berlin%3A+De+Gruyter%2E)
53. Hanks, Patrick. 2013. Lexical Analysis: Norms and Exploitation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Hanks%2C+Patrick%2E+2013%2E+Lexical+Analysis%3A+Norms+and+Exploitation%2E+Cambridge%2C+MA%3A+MIT+Press%2E)
54. Hardy, Humphrey H. 2014. ‘Diachronic Development in Biblical Hebrew Prepositions: A Case Study in Grammaticalization’. PhD dissertation, University of Chicago. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Hardy%2C+Humphrey+H%2E+2014%2E+%E2%80%98Diachronic+Development+in+Biblical+Hebrew+Prepositions%3A+A+Case+Study+in+Grammaticalization%E2%80%99%2E+PhD+dissertation%2C+University+of+Chicago%2E)
55. Heine, Bernd, Ulrike Claudi, and Friederike Hünnemeyer. 1991. Grammaticalization: A Conceptual Framework. Chicago: University of Chicago. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Heine%2C+Bernd%2C+Ulrike+Claudi%2C+and+Friederike+H%C3%BCnnemeyer%2E+1991%2E+Grammaticalization%3A+A+Conceptual+Framework%2E+Chicago%3A+University+of+Chicago%2E)
56. Hilpert, Martin. 2015. ‘Historical Linguistics’. In Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, edited by Ewa Dąbrowska and Dagmar Divjak, 346–65. Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science 39. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Hilpert%2C+Martin%2E+2015%2E+%E2%80%98Historical+Linguistics%E2%80%99%2E+In+Handbook+of+Cognitive+Linguistics%2C+edited+by+Ewa+D%C4%85browska+and+Dagmar+Divjak%2C+346%E2%80%9365%2E+Handbooks+of+Linguistics+and+Communication+Science+39%2E+Berlin%3A)
57. Hoffmann, Thomas. 2017. ‘From Constructions to Construction Grammars’. In The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, edited by Barbara Dancygier, 310–29. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316339732.019)
58. Hoffmann, Thomas, and Graeme Trousdale. 2013. The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Hoffmann%2C+Thomas%2C+and+Graeme+Trousdale%2E+2013%2E+The+Oxford+Handbook+of+Construction+Grammar%2E+Oxford%3A+Oxford+University+Press%2E)
59. Hopper, Paul J., and Elizabeth C. Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Hopper%2C+Paul+J%2E%2C+and+Elizabeth+C%2E+Traugott%2E+2003%2E+Grammaticalization%2E+2nd+edition%2E+Cambridge%3A+Cambridge+University+Press%2E)
60. Howe, Bonnie, and Joel B. Green (eds). 2014. Cognitive Linguistic Explorations in Biblical Studies. Berlin: De Gruyter. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Howe%2C+Bonnie%2C+and+Joel+B%2E+Green+%28eds%29%2E+2014%2E+Cognitive+Linguistic+Explorations+in+Biblical+Studies%2E+Berlin%3A+De+Gruyter%2E)
61. Janda, Laura A. 2013. ‘Quantitative Methods in Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction’. In Cognitive Linguistics: The Quantitative Turn: The Essential Reader, edited by Laura A Janda, 1–32. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110335255.1)
62. Jindo, Job Y. 2010. Biblical Metaphor Reconsidered: A Cognitive Approach to Poetic Prophecy in Jeremiah 1–24. Harvard Semitic Monographs 64. Leiden: Brill. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Jindo%2C+Job+Y%2E+2010%2E+Biblical+Metaphor+Reconsidered%3A+A+Cognitive+Approach+to+Poetic+Prophecy+in+Jeremiah+1%E2%80%9324%2E+Harvard+Semitic+Monographs+64%2E+Leiden%3A+Brill%2E)
63. Kamp, Albert. 2004. Inner Worlds: A Cognitive-Linguistic Approach to the Book of Jonah. Biblical Interpretation Series 68. Leiden: Brill. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Kamp%2C+Albert%2E+2004%2E+Inner+Worlds%3A+A+Cognitive%2DLinguistic+Approach+to+the+Book+of+Jonah%2E+Biblical+Interpretation+Series+68%2E+Leiden%3A+Brill%2E)
64. Kay, Paul, and Charles J Fillmore. 1999. ‘Grammatical Constructions and Linguistic Generalizations: The What’s X Doing Y? Construction’. Language 75 (1): 1–33. [↗](https://doi.org/10.2307/417472)
65. Khan, Geoffrey A., and Christo H. J. Van der Merwe. 2020. ‘Towards a Comprehensive Model for Interpreting Word Order in Classical Biblical Hebrew. Journal of Semitic Studies 65 (2): 347–90. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/jss/fgaa025) [our card](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/hbo-2020-khan-towards-comprehensive-model-interpreting-word/)
66. Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria. 2015. ‘Semantic Typology’. In Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, edited by Ewa Dąbrowska and Dagmar Divjak, 453–72. Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Sciences 39. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Koptjevskaja%2DTamm%2C+Maria%2E+2015%2E+%E2%80%98Semantic+Typology%E2%80%99%2E+In+Handbook+of+Cognitive+Linguistics%2C+edited+by+Ewa+D%C4%85browska+and+Dagmar+Divjak%2C+453%E2%80%9372%2E+Handbooks+of+Linguistics+and+Communication+Sciences+39%2E+Be)
67. Kotzé, Zacharias. 2004. ‘A Cognitive Linguistic Approach to the Emotion of Anger in the Old Testament’. HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 60 (3): 843–63. [↗](https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v60i3.612)
68. ———. 2005. ‘A Cognitive Linguistic Methodology for the Study of Metaphor in the Hebrew Bible’. Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 31 (1): 107–17. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%2E+2005%2E+%E2%80%98A+Cognitive+Linguistic+Methodology+for+the+Study+of+Metaphor+in+the+Hebrew+Bible%E2%80%99%2E+Journal+of+Northwest+Semitic+Languages+31+%281%29%3A+107%E2%80%9317%2E)
69. Kövecses, Zoltán. 2008. ‘Conceptual Metaphor Theory: Some Criticisms and Alternative Proposals’. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 6: 168–84. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=K%C3%B6vecses%2C+Zolt%C3%A1n%2E+2008%2E+%E2%80%98Conceptual+Metaphor+Theory%3A+Some+Criticisms+and+Alternative+Proposals%E2%80%99%2E+Annual+Review+of+Cognitive+Linguistics+6%3A+168%E2%80%9384%2E)
70. Kraska-Szlenk, Iwona. 2014. ‘Semantic Extensions of Body Part Terms: Common Patterns and Their Interpretation’. Language Sciences 44: 15–39. doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2014.02.002 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2014.02.002)
71. _________. 2020. Body Part Terms in Conceptualization and Language Use. Cognitive Linguistic Studies in Cultural Contexts 12. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%5F%5F%5F%5F%5F%5F%5F%5F%5F%2E+2020%2E+Body+Part+Terms+in+Conceptualization+and+Language+Use%2E+Cognitive+Linguistic+Studies+in+Cultural+Contexts+12%2E+Amsterdam%3A+John+Benjamins%2E)
72. Kuryłowicz, Jerzy. 1975 [1965]. ‘The Evolution of Grammatical Categories’. Esquisses linguistiques 2: 38–54. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Kury%C5%82owicz%2C+Jerzy%2E+1975+%5B1965%5D%2E+%E2%80%98The+Evolution+of+Grammatical+Categories%E2%80%99%2E+Esquisses+linguistiques+2%3A+38%E2%80%9354%2E)
73. Kruger, Paul A. 2000. ‘A Cognitive Interpretation of the Emotion of Anger in the Hebrew Bible’. Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 26: 155–62. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Kruger%2C+Paul+A%2E+2000%2E+%E2%80%98A+Cognitive+Interpretation+of+the+Emotion+of+Anger+in+the+Hebrew+Bible%E2%80%99%2E+Journal+of+Northwest+Semitic+Languages+26%3A+155%E2%80%9362%2E)
74. Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Lakoff%2C+George%2E+1987%2E+Women%2C+Fire+and+Dangerous+Things%3A+What+Categories+Reveal+About+the+Mind%2E+Chicago%3A+University+of+Chicago%2E)
75. Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Lakoff%2C+George%2C+and+Mark+Johnson%2E+1980%2E+Metaphors+We+Live+By%2E+Chicago%3A+University+of+Chicago+Press%2E)
76. Lakoff, George, and Mark Turner. 1989. More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Lakoff%2C+George%2C+and+Mark+Turner%2E+1989%2E+More+Than+Cool+Reason%3A+A+Field+Guide+to+Poetic+Metaphor%2E+Chicago%3A+University+of+Chicago+Press%2E)
77. Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Vol. I. Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Langacker%2C+Ronald+W%2E+1987%2E+Foundations+of+Cognitive+Grammar%3A+Vol%2E+I%2E+Theoretical+Prerequisites%2E+Stanford%2C+CA%3A+Stanford+University+Press%2E)
78. ———. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol II. Descriptive Application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%2E+1991%2E+Foundations+of+Cognitive+Grammar%2E+Vol+II%2E+Descriptive+Application%2E+Stanford%2C+CA%3A+Stanford+University+Press%2E)
79. ———. 2013. Essentials of Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%2E+2013%2E+Essentials+of+Cognitive+Grammar%2E+Oxford%3A+Oxford+University+Press%2E)
80. ———. 2016. ‘Working Towards a Synthesis’. Cognitive Linguistics 27 (4): 465–77. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%2E+2016%2E+%E2%80%98Working+Towards+a+Synthesis%E2%80%99%2E+Cognitive+Linguistics+27+%284%29%3A+465%E2%80%9377%2E)
81. ———. 2017. ‘Cognitive Grammar’. In The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, edited by Barbara Dancygier, 262– [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%2E+2017%2E+%E2%80%98Cognitive+Grammar%E2%80%99%2E+In+The+Cambridge+Handbook+of+Cognitive+Linguistics%2C+edited+by+Barbara+Dancygier%2C+262%E2%80%93)
82. Lamprecht, At. 2015. ‘Spatial Cognition and the Death Metaphor in the Hebrew Bible’. PhD dissertation, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Lamprecht%2C+At%2E+2015%2E+%E2%80%98Spatial+Cognition+and+the+Death+Metaphor+in+the+Hebrew+Bible%E2%80%99%2E+PhD+dissertation%2C+University+of+the+Free+State%2C+Bloemfontein%2E)
83. Lee, Yo-Seob. 2016. ‘Description of the Biblical Hebrew Lexeme ל א: ֶ A Cognitive Approach’. MA thesis, Stellenbosch University. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Lee%2C+Yo%2DSeob%2E+2016%2E+%E2%80%98Description+of+the+Biblical+Hebrew+Lexeme+%D7%9C+%D7%90%3A+%D6%B6+A+Cognitive+Approach%E2%80%99%2E+MA+thesis%2C+Stellenbosch+University%2E)
84. Lemmer, Lisa. 2014. ‘The Polysemic Nature of the of the Preposition ן מ (min) in Biblical Hebrew: A Study in the Book of Judges’. MA thesis, North-West University, Potchefstroom. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Lemmer%2C+Lisa%2E+2014%2E+%E2%80%98The+Polysemic+Nature+of+the+of+the+Preposition+%D7%9F+%D7%9E+%28min%29+in+Biblical+Hebrew%3A+A+Study+in+the+Book+of+Judges%E2%80%99%2E+MA+thesis%2C+North%2DWest+University%2C+Potchefstroom%2E)
85. Leong, Chin Hei. 2019. ‘Completeness – Balance: Revisiting the Biblical Hebrew Verb םלש from the Perspective of Cognitive Semantics’. PhD dissertation, KU Leuven. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Leong%2C+Chin+Hei%2E+2019%2E+%E2%80%98Completeness+%E2%80%93+Balance%3A+Revisiting+the+Biblical+Hebrew+Verb+%D7%9D%D7%9C%D7%A9+from+the+Perspective+of+Cognitive+Semantics%E2%80%99%2E+PhD+dissertation%2C+KU+Leuven%2E)
86. Locatell, Christian S. 2017. ‘Grammatical Polysemy in the Hebrew Bible: A Cognitive Linguistic Approach to kî’. PhD dissertation, Stellenbosch University. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Locatell%2C+Christian+S%2E+2017%2E+%E2%80%98Grammatical+Polysemy+in+the+Hebrew+Bible%3A+A+Cognitive+Linguistic+Approach+to+k%C3%AE%E2%80%99%2E+PhD+dissertation%2C+Stellenbosch+University%2E)
87. ———. 2019. ‘Causal Relationships Communicated with יֹ כ: A Cognitively Oriented Analysis’. Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 45 (2): 79–102. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%2E+2019%2E+%E2%80%98Causal+Relationships+Communicated+with+%D7%99%D6%B9+%D7%9B%3A+A+Cognitively+Oriented+Analysis%E2%80%99%2E+Journal+of+Northwest+Semitic+Languages+45+%282%29%3A+79%E2%80%93102%2E)
88. Lyle, Kristopher A. 2012. ‘A Cognitive Semantic Assessment of ם ע and ת א’s ֵּ Semantic Potential’. MA thesis, Stellenbosch University. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Lyle%2C+Kristopher+A%2E+2012%2E+%E2%80%98A+Cognitive+Semantic+Assessment+of+%D7%9D+%D7%A2+and+%D7%AA+%D7%90%E2%80%99s+%D6%B5%D6%BC+Semantic+Potential%E2%80%99%2E+MA+thesis%2C+Stellenbosch+University%2E)
89. ———. 2013. ‘A New Methodology for Ascertaining the Semantic Potential of Biblical Hebrew Prepositions’. Hebrew Studies 54 (1): 49–67. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%2E+2013%2E+%E2%80%98A+New+Methodology+for+Ascertaining+the+Semantic+Potential+of+Biblical+Hebrew+Prepositions%E2%80%99%2E+Hebrew+Studies+54+%281%29%3A+49%E2%80%9367%2E)
90. Martin, Willy. 1994. ‘Knowledge-Representation Schemata and Dictionary Definitions’. In Perspectives on English, edited by Keith Carlon, Kristin Davidse, Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn, and Emma Vorlat, 237–56. Orbis 2. Leuven: Peeters. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Martin%2C+Willy%2E+1994%2E+%E2%80%98Knowledge%2DRepresentation+Schemata+and+Dictionary+Definitions%E2%80%99%2E+In+Perspectives+on+English%2C+edited+by+Keith+Carlon%2C+Kristin+Davidse%2C+Brygida+Rudzka%2DOstyn%2C+and+Emma+Vorlat%2C+237%E2%80%9356%2E)
91. Mena, Andrea K. 2012. ‘The Semantic Potential of ל ע ַׁ in Genesis, Psalms, and Chronicles’. MA thesis, Stellenbosch University. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Mena%2C+Andrea+K%2E+2012%2E+%E2%80%98The+Semantic+Potential+of+%D7%9C+%D7%A2+%D6%B7%D7%81+in+Genesis%2C+Psalms%2C+and+Chronicles%E2%80%99%2E+MA+thesis%2C+Stellenbosch+University%2E)
92. Miller-Naudé, Cynthia L., and Christo H. J. van der Merwe. 2011. ‘ה ֵּנ ה and Mirativity in Biblical Hebrew’. Hebrew Studies 52 (1): 53–81. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Miller%2DNaud%C3%A9%2C+Cynthia+L%2E%2C+and+Christo+H%2E+J%2E+van+der+Merwe%2E+2011%2E+%E2%80%98%D7%94+%D6%B5%D6%BC%D7%A0+%D7%94+and+Mirativity+in+Biblical+Hebrew%E2%80%99%2E+Hebrew+Studies+52+%281%29%3A+53%E2%80%9381%2E)
93. Müller, Katrin. 2018. Lobe den Herrn Meine “Seele”: Eine Kognitiv-Linguistische Studie zur Nӕfӕš des Menschen im Alten Testament. Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament 215. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=M%C3%BCller%2C+Katrin%2E+2018%2E+Lobe+den+Herrn+Meine+%E2%80%9CSeele%E2%80%9D%3A+Eine+Kognitiv%2DLinguistische+Studie+zur+N%D3%95f%D3%95%C5%A1+des+Menschen+im+Alten+Testament%2E+Beitr%C3%A4ge+zur+Wissenschaft+vom+Alten+und+Neuen+Testament+215%2E+Stuttgart)
94. Murphy, Gregory L. 2002. The Big Book Concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Murphy%2C+Gregory+L%2E+2002%2E+The+Big+Book+Concepts%2E+Cambridge%2C+MA%3A+MIT+Press%2E)
95. Narrog, Heiko, and Bernd Heine (eds). 2011. The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199586783.001.0001)
96. Peters, Kurtis. 2016. Hebrew Lexical Semantics and Daily Life in Ancient Israel: What’s Cooking in Biblical Hebrew. Biblical Interpretation Series 146. Leiden: Brill. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004325982)
97. Rechenmacher, Hans. 2004. ‘Kognitive Linguistik und al-thebräische Lexikographie’. Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 30 (2): 43–59. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Rechenmacher%2C+Hans%2E+2004%2E+%E2%80%98Kognitive+Linguistik+und+al%2Dthebr%C3%A4ische+Lexikographie%E2%80%99%2E+Journal+of+Northwest+Semitic+Languages+30+%282%29%3A+43%E2%80%9359%2E)
98. Riemer, Nick. 2010. Introducing Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Riemer%2C+Nick%2E+2010%2E+Introducing+Semantics%2E+Cambridge%3A+Cambridge+University+Press%2E)
99. Robar, Elizabeth. 2014. The Verb and the Paragraph in Biblical Hebrew: A Cognitive-Linguistic Approach. Studies in Semitic Studies Languages and Linguistics 78. Leiden: Brill. [↗](https://doi.org/10.53751/001c.29373)
100. Rodriguez, Daniel. 2017. ‘The Biblical Hebrew Prepositions taḥat, ʻal, ʼaḥar and lifnê/mifnê: A Cognitive Linguistic Account’. PhD dissertation, Stellenbosch University. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Rodriguez%2C+Daniel%2E+2017%2E+%E2%80%98The+Biblical+Hebrew+Prepositions+ta%E1%B8%A5at%2C+%CA%BBal%2C+%CA%BCa%E1%B8%A5ar+and+lifn%C3%AA%2Fmifn%C3%AA%3A+A+Cognitive+Linguistic+Account%E2%80%99%2E+PhD+dissertation%2C+Stellenbosch+University%2E)
101. Ruark, Joel. 2019. ‘Toward an Old Testament Theology of Light: From Physical Concept to Metaphysical Analogy’. PhD dissertation, Stellenbosch University. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Ruark%2C+Joel%2E+2019%2E+%E2%80%98Toward+an+Old+Testament+Theology+of+Light%3A+From+Physical+Concept+to+Metaphysical+Analogy%E2%80%99%2E+PhD+dissertation%2C+Stellenbosch+University%2E)
102. Sanders, Ted, and Eve Sweetser (eds). 2009. Causal Categories in Discourse and Cognition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Sanders%2C+Ted%2C+and+Eve+Sweetser+%28eds%29%2E+2009%2E+Causal+Categories+in+Discourse+and+Cognition%2E+Berlin%3A+Mouton+de+Gruyter%2E)
103. Shead, Stephen L. 2011. Radical Frame Semantics and Biblical Hebrew: Exploring Lexical Semantics. Biblical Interpretation Series 108. Leiden: Brill. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Shead%2C+Stephen+L%2E+2011%2E+Radical+Frame+Semantics+and+Biblical+Hebrew%3A+Exploring+Lexical+Semantics%2E+Biblical+Interpretation+Series+108%2E+Leiden%3A+Brill%2E)
104. Taylor, John R. 2002. Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Taylor%2C+John+R%2E+2002%2E+Cognitive+Grammar%2E+Oxford%3A+Oxford+University+Press%2E)
105. ———. 2003. Linguistic Categorization. 3rd edition. New York: Oxford University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%2E+2003%2E+Linguistic+Categorization%2E+3rd+edition%2E+New+York%3A+Oxford+University+Press%2E)
106. ———. 2015. ‘Prototypes Effects in Grammar’. In Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, edited by Ewa Dąbrowska and Dagmar Divjak, 562–79. Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Sciences 39. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%2E+2015%2E+%E2%80%98Prototypes+Effects+in+Grammar%E2%80%99%2E+In+Handbook+of+Cognitive+Linguistics%2C+edited+by+Ewa+D%C4%85browska+and+Dagmar+Divjak%2C+562%E2%80%9379%2E+Handbooks+of+Linguistics+and+Communication+Sciences+39%2E+Berlin%3A+De+)
107. Taylor, John R., and Jeannette Littlemore. 2014. The Bloomsbury Companion to Cognitive Linguistics. London: Bloomsbury. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Taylor%2C+John+R%2E%2C+and+Jeannette+Littlemore%2E+2014%2E+The+Bloomsbury+Companion+to+Cognitive+Linguistics%2E+London%3A+Bloomsbury%2E)
108. Thompson, Jeremy and Kristopher A. Lyle. 2019. ‘A Behavioral Profile Analysis of Biblical Hebrew דקפ: Quantitative Explorations of Polysemy’. In Ancient Text and Modern Readers: Studies in Ancient Hebrew Linguistics and Bible Translation, edited by Gideon R. Kotzé, Christian S. Locatell and Jack A. Messarra, 127–48. Studia Semitica Neerlandica 71. Leiden: Brill. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Thompson%2C+Jeremy+and+Kristopher+A%2E+Lyle%2E+2019%2E+%E2%80%98A+Behavioral+Profile+Analysis+of+Biblical+Hebrew+%D7%93%D7%A7%D7%A4%3A+Quantitative+Explorations+of+Polysemy%E2%80%99%2E+In+Ancient+Text+and+Modern+Readers%3A+Studies+in+Ancient+Heb)
109. Traugott, Elizabeth C., and Richard B. Dasher. 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 97. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511486500)
110. Turner, Mark. 1996. The Literary Mind: The Origins of Thought and Language. New York: Oxford University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Turner%2C+Mark%2E+1996%2E+The+Literary+Mind%3A+The+Origins+of+Thought+and+Language%2E+New+York%3A+Oxford+University+Press%2E)
111. Tyler, Andrea, and Vyvyan Evans. 2003. The Semantics of English Prepositions: Spatial Scenes, Embodied Meaning and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Tyler%2C+Andrea%2C+and+Vyvyan+Evans%2E+2003%2E+The+Semantics+of+English+Prepositions%3A+Spatial+Scenes%2C+Embodied+Meaning+and+Cognition%2E+Cambridge%3A+Cambridge+University+Press%2E)
112. Van der Merwe, Christo H. J. 2003. ‘Some Recent Trends in Biblical Hebrew Linguistics: A Few Pointers towards a More Comprehensive Model of Language Use’. Hebrew Studies 44: 7–24. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1353/hbr.2003.0004)
113. ———. 2006a. ‘Biblical Hebrew Lexicology: A Cognitive Linguistic Perspective’. KUSATU 6: 87–112. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%2E+2006a%2E+%E2%80%98Biblical+Hebrew+Lexicology%3A+A+Cognitive+Linguistic+Perspective%E2%80%99%2E+KUSATU+6%3A+87%E2%80%93112%2E)
114. ———. 2006b. ‘Lexical Meaning in Biblical Hebrew and Cognitive Semantics: A Case Study’. Biblica 87 (1): 85–95. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%2E+2006b%2E+%E2%80%98Lexical+Meaning+in+Biblical+Hebrew+and+Cognitive+Semantics%3A+A+Case+Study%E2%80%99%2E+Biblica+87+%281%29%3A+85%E2%80%9395%2E)
115. ———. 2006c. ‘Biblical Exegesis, Cognitive Linguistics and Hypertext’. In Congress Volume Leiden 2004, edited by André Lemaire, 255–80. Supplement to Vetus Testamentum 109. Leiden: Brill. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%2E+2006c%2E+%E2%80%98Biblical+Exegesis%2C+Cognitive+Linguistics+and+Hypertext%E2%80%99%2E+In+Congress+Volume+Leiden+2004%2C+edited+by+Andr%C3%A9+Lemaire%2C+255%E2%80%9380%2E+Supplement+to+Vetus+Testamentum+109%2E+Leiden%3A+Brill%2E)
116. ———. 2007. ‘A Cognitive Linguistic Perspective on ה ֵּנ ה in the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges and Ruth’. Hebrew Studies 47: 238–77. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%2E+2007%2E+%E2%80%98A+Cognitive+Linguistic+Perspective+on+%D7%94+%D6%B5%D6%BC%D7%A0+%D7%94+in+the+Pentateuch%2C+Joshua%2C+Judges+and+Ruth%E2%80%99%2E+Hebrew+Studies+47%3A+238%E2%80%9377%2E)
117. ———. 2009a. ‘The Biblical Hebrew Particle ף א’. ַׁ Vetus Testamentum 59: 266–83. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%2E+2009a%2E+%E2%80%98The+Biblical+Hebrew+Particle+%D7%A3+%D7%90%E2%80%99%2E+%D6%B7%D7%81+Vetus+Testamentum+59%3A+266%E2%80%9383%2E)
118. ———. 2009b. ‘Another Look at the Biblical Hebrew Focus Particle ם ַׁג’. Journal of Semitic Studies 54 (2): 313–32. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%2E+2009b%2E+%E2%80%98Another+Look+at+the+Biblical+Hebrew+Focus+Particle+%D7%9D+%D6%B7%D7%81%D7%92%E2%80%99%2E+Journal+of+Semitic+Studies+54+%282%29%3A+313%E2%80%9332%2E)
119. ———. 2010. ‘Hebrew Linguistics as Corpus Linguistics’. In Computer Assisted Research on the Bible in the 21st Century, edited by L. Vegas Montaner, G. Seijas de los Ríos-Zarzosa, and J. del Barco, 135–58. Bible in Technology 5. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%2E+2010%2E+%E2%80%98Hebrew+Linguistics+as+Corpus+Linguistics%E2%80%99%2E+In+Computer+Assisted+Research+on+the+Bible+in+the+21st+Century%2C+edited+by+L%2E+Vegas+Montaner%2C+G%2E+Seijas+de+los+R%C3%ADos%2DZarzosa%2C+and+J%2E+del+Barco%2C+135)
120. ———. 2011. ‘The Difference between ן ה, ֵּ ה ֵּנ ה and ה א ֵּ ר’. In “Ich Werde Meinen Bund mit Euch Niemals Brechen!” (Ri 2,1): Festschrift für Walter Gross Zum 70. Geburtstag, edited by Erasmus Gass and Herman-Josef Stipp, 237–56. Freiburg: Herder. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%2E+2011%2E+%E2%80%98The+Difference+between+%D7%9F+%D7%94%2C+%D6%B5%D6%BC+%D7%94+%D6%B5%D6%BC%D7%A0+%D7%94+and+%D7%94+%D7%90+%D6%B5%D6%BC+%D7%A8%E2%80%99%2E+In+%E2%80%9CIch+Werde+Meinen+Bund+mit+Euch+Niemals+Brechen%21%E2%80%9D+%28Ri+2%2C1%29%3A+Festschrift+f%C3%BCr+Walter+Gross+Zum+70%2E+Geburtstag%2C+edited+by+Erasmus+Gass)
121. ———. 2014. ‘The Challenge of Better Understanding Discourse Particles: The Case of ן כ ֵּ ל’. ָ Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 40 (2): 127–57. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%2E+2014%2E+%E2%80%98The+Challenge+of+Better+Understanding+Discourse+Particles%3A+The+Case+of+%D7%9F+%D7%9B+%D6%B5%D6%BC+%D7%9C%E2%80%99%2E+%D6%B8+Journal+of+Northwest+Semitic+Languages+40+%282%29%3A+127%E2%80%9357%2E)
122. ———. 2018a. ‘The Polysemous Relationships between the Senses of the Verbal Root קזח’. Biblica 99 (2): 1–23. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%2E+2018a%2E+%E2%80%98The+Polysemous+Relationships+between+the+Senses+of+the+Verbal+Root+%D7%A7%D7%96%D7%97%E2%80%99%2E+Biblica+99+%282%29%3A+1%E2%80%9323%2E)
123. ———. 2018b. ‘Review of Burton, Marilyn E. 2017. The Semantics of Glory: A Cognitive, Corpus-Based Approach to Hebrew Word Meaning (Studia Semitica Neerlandica 68)’. Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 44 (1): 89–93. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%2E+2018b%2E+%E2%80%98Review+of+Burton%2C+Marilyn+E%2E+2017%2E+The+Semantics+of+Glory%3A+A+Cognitive%2C+Corpus%2DBased+Approach+to+Hebrew+Word+Meaning+%28Studia+Semitica+Neerlandica+68%29%E2%80%99%2E+Journal+of+Northwest+Semitic+Langua)
124. ———. 2019a. ‘Review of Coleman, Stephen. 2018. The Biblical Hebrew Transitivity Alternation in Cognitive Linguistic Perspective (Abhandelungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 114)’. Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 45 (2): 121–28. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%2E+2019a%2E+%E2%80%98Review+of+Coleman%2C+Stephen%2E+2018%2E+The+Biblical+Hebrew+Transitivity+Alternation+in+Cognitive+Linguistic+Perspective+%28Abhandelungen+f%C3%BCr+die+Kunde+des+Morgenlandes+114%29%E2%80%99%2E+Journal+of+Northwes)
125. ———. 2019b. ‘Review of Müller, Katrin. 2018. Lobe den Herrn Meine “Seele”. Eine Kognitiv-Linguistische Studie zur Nӕfӕš des Menschen im Alten Testament (Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament 215)’. Theologische Revue 115 (6): 470. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%2E+2019b%2E+%E2%80%98Review+of+M%C3%BCller%2C+Katrin%2E+2018%2E+Lobe+den+Herrn+Meine+%E2%80%9CSeele%E2%80%9D%2E+Eine+Kognitiv%2DLinguistische+Studie+zur+N%D3%95f%D3%95%C5%A1+des+Menschen+im+Alten+Testament+%28Beitr%C3%A4ge+zur+Wissenschaft+vom+Alten+und+Neuen+T)
126. Van der Merwe, Christo H. J., and Izak Cornelius. 2019. ‘A Profile of ד ָיֹ in the Book of Jeremiah: A Perspective from Lexical Typology and Material Culture’. In Jeremia, Deuterono-mismus und Priesterschrift: Beiträge zur Literatur- und Theologie-Geschichte des alten Testaments—Festschrift für Hermann-Josef Stipp zum 65. Geburtstag, edited by Andreas Michael and Nicolene K. Rüttgers, 279–304. Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache im Alten Testament 105. St. Ottilien: EOS. Van der Merwe, Christo H. J., Jacobus A. Naudé, and Jan H. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Van+der+Merwe%2C+Christo+H%2E+J%2E%2C+and+Izak+Cornelius%2E+2019%2E+%E2%80%98A+Profile+of+%D7%93+%D6%B8%D7%99%D6%B9+in+the+Book+of+Jeremiah%3A+A+Perspective+from+Lexical+Typology+and+Material+Culture%E2%80%99%2E+In+Jeremia%2C+Deuterono%2Dmismus+und+Prieste)
127. Kroeze. 2017. A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar. 2nd edition. London: Bloomsbury. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Kroeze%2E+2017%2E+A+Biblical+Hebrew+Reference+Grammar%2E+2nd+edition%2E+London%3A+Bloomsbury%2E)
128. Van Hecke, Pierre J. P. 2001a. ‘Polysemy or Homonymy in the Root(s) r‘h in Biblical Hebrew: A Cognitive Linguistic Approach’. Zeitschrift für Althebräistik 14: 50–67. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Van+Hecke%2C+Pierre+J%2E+P%2E+2001a%2E+%E2%80%98Polysemy+or+Homonymy+in+the+Root%28s%29+r%E2%80%98h+in+Biblical+Hebrew%3A+A+Cognitive+Linguistic+Approach%E2%80%99%2E+Zeitschrift+f%C3%BCr+Althebr%C3%A4istik+14%3A+50%E2%80%9367%2E)
129. ———. 2001b. ‘Shepherds and Linguistics: A Cognitive Linguistic Approach to the Metaphor “God is Shepherd” in Gen 48:15 and Context’. In Studies in the Book of Genesis: Literature, Redaction and History, edited by André Wénin, 479–95. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 155. Leuven: Peters. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%2E+2001b%2E+%E2%80%98Shepherds+and+Linguistics%3A+A+Cognitive+Linguistic+Approach+to+the+Metaphor+%E2%80%9CGod+is+Shepherd%E2%80%9D+in+Gen+48%3A15+and+Context%E2%80%99%2E+In+Studies+in+the+Book+of+Genesis%3A+Literature%2C+Redaction+and+Histor)
130. ———. 2003a. ‘Searching for and Exploring Wisdom: A Cognitive Semantic Approach to the Hebrew Verb haqar in Job 28’. In Job 28: Cognition in Context, edited by Ellen J. Van Wolde, 139–62. Biblical Interpretation Series 64. Leiden: Brill. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%2E+2003a%2E+%E2%80%98Searching+for+and+Exploring+Wisdom%3A+A+Cognitive+Semantic+Approach+to+the+Hebrew+Verb+haqar+in+Job+28%E2%80%99%2E+In+Job+28%3A+Cognition+in+Context%2C+edited+by+Ellen+J%2E+Van+Wolde%2C+139%E2%80%9362%2E+Biblical+Inte)
131. ———. 2003b. ‘Living Alone in the Shrubs: Positive Pastoral Metaphors in Micah 7:14’. Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 115: 362–75. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%2E+2003b%2E+%E2%80%98Living+Alone+in+the+Shrubs%3A+Positive+Pastoral+Metaphors+in+Micah+7%3A14%E2%80%99%2E+Zeitschrift+f%C3%BCr+die+Alttestamentliche+Wissenschaft+115%3A+362%E2%80%9375%2E)
132. ——— (ed.). 2005a. Metaphor in the Hebrew Bible. Biblotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 187. Leuven: Peeters. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%E2%80%94+%28ed%2E%29%2E+2005a%2E+Metaphor+in+the+Hebrew+Bible%2E+Biblotheca+Ephemeridum+Theologicarum+Lovaniensium+187%2E+Leuven%3A+Peeters%2E)
133. ———. 2005b. ‘Conceptual Blending: A Recent Approach to Metaphor’. In Metaphor in the Hebrew Bible, edited by Pierre J. P. Van Hecke, 215–31. Biblotheca Ephemeridum Theologi-carum Lovaniensium 187. Leuven: Peeters. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%2E+2005b%2E+%E2%80%98Conceptual+Blending%3A+A+Recent+Approach+to+Metaphor%E2%80%99%2E+In+Metaphor+in+the+Hebrew+Bible%2C+edited+by+Pierre+J%2E+P%2E+Van+Hecke%2C+215%E2%80%9331%2E+Biblotheca+Ephemeridum+Theologi%2Dcarum+Lovaniensium+187%2E+Leu)
134. ———. 2007. ‘The Verbs האר and עמש in the Book of Qohelet: A Cognitive Semantic Perspective’. In The Language of Qohelet in Its Contexts: Essays in Honour of Prof. A. Schoors on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, edited by Angelika Ber-jelung and Pierre J. P. Van Hecke, 302–20. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 164. Leuven: Peeters. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%2E+2007%2E+%E2%80%98The+Verbs+%D7%94%D7%90%D7%A8+and+%D7%A2%D7%9E%D7%A9+in+the+Book+of+Qohelet%3A+A+Cognitive+Semantic+Perspective%E2%80%99%2E+In+The+Language+of+Qohelet+in+Its+Contexts%3A+Essays+in+Honour+of+Prof%2E+A%2E+Schoors+on+the+Occasion+of+His+Sev)
135. ———. 2011. From Linguistics to Hermeneutics: A Functional and Cognitive Approach to Job 12–14. Studia Semitica Neerlandica 55. Leiden: Brill. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%2E+2011%2E+From+Linguistics+to+Hermeneutics%3A+A+Functional+and+Cognitive+Approach+to+Job+12%E2%80%9314%2E+Studia+Semitica+Neerlandica+55%2E+Leiden%3A+Brill%2E)
136. Van Hecke, Pierre J. P., and Antje Labahn (eds). 2010. Metaphors in the Psalms. Biblotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 231. Leuven: Peeters. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Van+Hecke%2C+Pierre+J%2E+P%2E%2C+and+Antje+Labahn+%28eds%29%2E+2010%2E+Metaphors+in+the+Psalms%2E+Biblotheca+Ephemeridum+Theologicarum+Lovaniensium+231%2E+Leuven%3A+Peeters%2E)
137. Van Loon, Hanneke. 2018. Metaphors in the Discussion on Suffering in Job 3–31. Visions of Hope and Consolation. Biblical Interpretation Series 165. Leiden: Brill. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004380936)
138. Van Steenbergen, Gerrit J. 2002. ‘Componential Analysis of Meaning and Cognitive Linguistics: Some Prospects for Biblical Hebrew Lexicology (Part 1)’. Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 28: 19–38. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Van+Steenbergen%2C+Gerrit+J%2E+2002%2E+%E2%80%98Componential+Analysis+of+Meaning+and+Cognitive+Linguistics%3A+Some+Prospects+for+Biblical+Hebrew+Lexicology+%28Part+1%29%E2%80%99%2E+Journal+of+Northwest+Semitic+Languages+28%3A+19%E2%80%9338%2E)
139. ———. 2003. ‘Componential Analysis of Meaning and Cognitive Linguistics: Some Prospects for Biblical Hebrew Lexicology (Part 2)’. Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 29 (2): 109–26. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%2E+2003%2E+%E2%80%98Componential+Analysis+of+Meaning+and+Cognitive+Linguistics%3A+Some+Prospects+for+Biblical+Hebrew+Lexicology+%28Part+2%29%E2%80%99%2E+Journal+of+Northwest+Semitic+Languages+29+%282%29%3A+109%E2%80%9326%2E)
140. ———. 2005. Semantics, World View and Bible Translation: An Integrated Analysis of a Selection of Hebrew Lexical Items Referring to Negative Moral Behavior in the Book of Isaiah. Stellenbosch: SUN Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%2E+2005%2E+Semantics%2C+World+View+and+Bible+Translation%3A+An+Integrated+Analysis+of+a+Selection+of+Hebrew+Lexical+Items+Referring+to+Negative+Moral+Behavior+in+the+Book+of+Isaiah%2E+Stellenbosch%3A+SUN+Pres)
141. Van Wolde, Ellen J. 2008. ‘Sentiments as Culturally Constructed Emotions: Anger and Love in the Hebrew Bible’. Biblical Interpretation: A Journal of Contemporary Approaches 16 (1): 1–24. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1163/156851508x247602)
142. ———. 2009. Reframing Biblical Studies: When Language and Text Meet Culture, Cognition, and Context. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%2E+2009%2E+Reframing+Biblical+Studies%3A+When+Language+and+Text+Meet+Culture%2C+Cognition%2C+and+Context%2E+Winona+Lake%2C+IN%3A+Eisenbrauns%2E)
143. ———. 2013a. ‘One Bow or Another? A Study of the Bow in Genesis 9:8–17’. Vetus Testamentum 63 (1): 124–49. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%2E+2013a%2E+%E2%80%98One+Bow+or+Another%3F+A+Study+of+the+Bow+in+Genesis+9%3A8%E2%80%9317%E2%80%99%2E+Vetus+Testamentum+63+%281%29%3A+124%E2%80%9349%2E)
144. ———. 2013b. ‘Cognitive Linguistics: A Cognitive Linguistic Study of the Concept of Defilement in Ezekiel 22:1–16’. In Biblical Interpretation and Method: Essays in Honour of John Barton, edited by Katharine J. Dell and Paul M. Joyce, 257– [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%2E+2013b%2E+%E2%80%98Cognitive+Linguistics%3A+A+Cognitive+Linguistic+Study+of+the+Concept+of+Defilement+in+Ezekiel+22%3A1%E2%80%9316%E2%80%99%2E+In+Biblical+Interpretation+and+Method%3A+Essays+in+Honour+of+John+Barton%2C+edited+by+Kat)
145. ———. 2014. ‘Cognitive Grammar at Work in Sodom and Gomorrah’. In Cognitive Linguistic Explorations in Biblical Studies, edited by Bonnie Howe and Joel B. Green, 193–221. Berlin: De Gruyter. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%2E+2014%2E+%E2%80%98Cognitive+Grammar+at+Work+in+Sodom+and+Gomorrah%E2%80%99%2E+In+Cognitive+Linguistic+Explorations+in+Biblical+Studies%2C+edited+by+Bonnie+Howe+and+Joel+B%2E+Green%2C+193%E2%80%93221%2E+Berlin%3A+De+Gruyter%2E)
146. ———. 2015. ‘The God Ezekiel 1 Envisions’. In The God Ezekiel Creates, edited by Paul M. Joyce and Dalit Rom-Shiloni, 87– 106. London: Bloomsbury. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%2E+2015%2E+%E2%80%98The+God+Ezekiel+1+Envisions%E2%80%99%2E+In+The+God+Ezekiel+Creates%2C+edited+by+Paul+M%2E+Joyce+and+Dalit+Rom%2DShiloni%2C+87%E2%80%93+106%2E+London%3A+Bloomsbury%2E)
147. ———. 2017. ‘Separation and Creation in Genesis 1 and Psalm 104, a Continuation of the Discussion of the Verb ארב’. Vetus Testamentum 67: 611–47. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%2E+2017%2E+%E2%80%98Separation+and+Creation+in+Genesis+1+and+Psalm+104%2C+a+Continuation+of+the+Discussion+of+the+Verb+%D7%90%D7%A8%D7%91%E2%80%99%2E+Vetus+Testamentum+67%3A+611%E2%80%9347%2E)
148. ———. 2019. ‘The Niphal as Middle Voice and Its Consequence for Meaning’. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 43 (3): 453–79. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%2E+2019%2E+%E2%80%98The+Niphal+as+Middle+Voice+and+Its+Consequence+for+Meaning%E2%80%99%2E+Journal+for+the+Study+of+the+Old+Testament+43+%283%29%3A+453%E2%80%9379%2E)
149. Van Wolde, Ellen J., and Robert Rezetko. 2011. ‘Semantics and the Semantics of ארב: A Rejoinder to the Arguments Advanced by B. Becking and M. Korpel’. Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 11 Article 9. doi.org/10.5508/jhs.2011.v11.a9. [↗](https://doi.org/10.5508/jhs.2011.v11.a9)
150. Verhagen, Arie. 2005. Constructions of Intersubjectivity: Discourse, Syntax, and Cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Verhagen%2C+Arie%2E+2005%2E+Constructions+of+Intersubjectivity%3A+Discourse%2C+Syntax%2C+and+Cognition%2E+Oxford%3A+Oxford+University+Press%2E)
151. Wardlaw, Terrance, W., Jr. 2014. ‘The Meaning of ארב in Genesis 1:1–2:3’. Vetus Testamentum 64: 502–13. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Wardlaw%2C+Terrance%2C+W%2E%2C+Jr%2E+2014%2E+%E2%80%98The+Meaning+of+%D7%90%D7%A8%D7%91+in+Genesis+1%3A1%E2%80%932%3A3%E2%80%99%2E+Vetus+Testamentum+64%3A+502%E2%80%9313%2E)
152. Widder, Wendy L. 2014. “To Teach” in Ancient Israel: A Cognitive Linguistic Study of a Biblical Hebrew Lexical Set. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 456. Berlin: De Gruyter. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Widder%2C+Wendy+L%2E+2014%2E+%E2%80%9CTo+Teach%E2%80%9D+in+Ancient+Israel%3A+A+Cognitive+Linguistic+Study+of+a+Biblical+Hebrew+Lexical+Set%2E+Beihefte+zur+Zeitschrift+f%C3%BCr+die+Alttestamentliche+Wissenschaft+456%2E+Berlin%3A+De+Gruy)
153. Yoo, Chang-Keol. 2013. ‘A Cognitive Linguistic Description of Purpose and Result Connectives in Biblical Hebrew’. PhD dissertation, Stellenbosch University. FROM חוּל ַ TO ר פ ֶ ס ֵ AND BACK: AN EPISODE IN BIBLICAL HEBREW HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS 1 Tania Notarius The Classical Biblical Hebrew (CBH) word ר פ ֶ ס ֵ ‘letter, written document’ and its Late Biblical Hebrew (LBH) counterparts ת ִ ר ֶ ִֶגּ א ִ and ב ת ְָ כ ִ are well-known chapters in the historical study of the Hebrew language: the CBH term was partially replaced by new terms, due to the interference of Aramaic, but continued in the usage ‘book, scroll, writing’. 2 Most of the research for this paper was accomplished while I was the Experienced Research Fellow at the Martin-Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, generously supported by the Humboldt Stiftung. I want to thank the organisers of the conference Biblical and Rabbinic Hebrew: New Perspectives in Philology and Linguistics for inviting me and the participants for interesting comments and discussion. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Yoo%2C+Chang%2DKeol%2E+2013%2E+%E2%80%98A+Cognitive+Linguistic+Description+of+Purpose+and+Result+Connectives+in+Biblical+Hebrew%E2%80%99%2E+PhD+dissertation%2C+Stellenbosch+University%2E+FROM+%D7%97%D7%95%D6%BC%D7%9C+%D6%B7+TO+%D7%A8+%D7%A4+%D6%B6+%D7%A1+%D6%B5+AND+BACK%3A+AN+EPISO)
154. See Hurvitz et al. (2014, 26–27, 149, 194) and the bibliography there; Hendel and Joosten (2018, 20–21). For ִר פ ֶ ס ֵ as ‘letter’ in LBH cf. 2 Chron. 32.17; Est. 1.22; 3.13; 8.5, 10; 9.20, 25, 30; see Hendel and Joosten (2018, 150 n. 51). The translation ‘book’ does not imply ‘codex’, but rather ‘a long, apparently literary, composition’, transmitted on any physical carrier; see the discussion in Naudé and Miller-Naudé (2016). [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=See+Hurvitz+et+al%2E+%282014%2C+26%E2%80%9327%2C+149%2C+194%29+and+the+bibliography+there%3B+Hendel+and+Joosten+%282018%2C+20%E2%80%9321%29%2E+For+%D6%B4%D7%A8+%D7%A4+%D6%B6+%D7%A1+%D6%B5+as+%E2%80%98letter%E2%80%99+in+LBH+cf%2E+2+Chron%2E+32%2E17%3B+Est%2E+1%2E22%3B+3%2E13%3B+8%2E5%2C+10%3B+9%2E20%2C+25%2C+30%3B+s)
155. © 2021 Tania Notarius, CC BY 4.0 Examination of the Ugaritic corpus shows that the ancient Northwest Semitic (NWS) lexeme *spr was not always the default term for a written document: 3 it gained its position gradually, contending with other terms for ‘writing’, the word *lwḥ ‘tablet, letter’ the most important among them. The goal of this paper is to demonstrate the relevance of the Ugaritic data for the historical study of Hebrew—particularly of Hebrew lexical items—and to trace the semantic development of the noun *lwḥ from Ugarit to Qumran Hebrew (QH), comparing when necessary with the master-term *spr and other terms for writing. 4 [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%C2%A9+2021+Tania+Notarius%2C+CC+BY+4%2E0+Examination+of+the+Ugaritic+corpus+shows+that+the+ancient+Northwest+Semitic+%28NWS%29+lexeme+%2Aspr+was+not+always+the+default+term+for+a+written+document%3A+3+it+gained+its+p)
156. This research was finalised before Philip Zhakevich’s (2015) dissertation became known to me; I could not fully accommodate the results of his study (especially pp. 125–33) in the present paper. See DULAT (756–57); it distinguishes between four main functions of spr II: (1) “tablet / register, list, inventory; in accounting, record of tribute; of instructions”; (2) “writing, document, warrant”; (3) “letter, missive”; (4) archival note of “reference, matter”. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=This+research+was+finalised+before+Philip+Zhakevich%E2%80%99s+%282015%29+dissertation+became+known+to+me%3B+I+could+not+fully+accommodate+the+results+of+his+study+%28especially+pp%2E+125%E2%80%9333%29+in+the+present+paper%2E+See+D)
157. Hawley, Pardee, and Roche-Hawley (2015, 252) derive this noun from the root s-p-r ‘count’ and observe (note 64): From חוּל ַ to ַר פ ֶ ס ֵ and Back (1a) ḫpṯ d bl spr ṯnn d bl hg ‘mercenaries without number, archers without count’ (1.14 II 37–38, and parallels) (1b) b py sprhn b špty mnthm ‘in my mouth (I have) their inventory, on my lips (is) their list’ (1.24:45–46). In my view, there is no need to draw such a distinction, since the spr II used about ‘writing’ also has many usages connected to ‘counting, registering, and listing’, as in (2a)–(2b), clearly motivated by the root s-p-r, commonly for the sake of ‘accounting’, e.g., (2c): (2a) spr npš d ˁrb bt mlk w b spr l št yrmˁl 3 ṣry 2… ‘record of the individuals who entered the house of the king, but who had not been put in a record: PN—3, PN— 2…’ (4.338:1–6). 6 (2b) spr bnš mlk d tảršn ˁmsn bṣr ảbn špšyn ‘register of the personnel of the king who claim the cargo: PN, PN, PN’ (4.370:1–3). 7 Its morphological structure was probably /sipru/. The word /sipru/ appears in various literary genres in reference to the inscribed tablet itself, e.g., spr ḥpr ‘document of rations’ (RS 17.106), or spr dbḥ ẓlm ‘document of sacrifices of the shades’ (RS 34.126, a funerary ritual). It is clear that, as spr + X defines the type of document, spr + PN defines who put the document into writing. All Ugaritic examples in this paper are according to CAT/KTU. See also 4.33:1; 4.288:1; 4.320:1; 4.322:1; 4.561:1; 4.714:1. Cf. 4.141 I 1; 4.144:1; 4.367:1; 4.609:1; + many. (2c) spr ḥṯbn sbrdnm ḫmš[[x]] kkrm ảlp[[x]] kbd ṯlṯ ‘account book of the bronze-smiths: five talents, one thousand (shekels) of copper’ (4.337:1–3). 8 Apparently, due to interference of the Akkadian lexeme šipru/ šipirtu ‘message, instruction’, 9 spr acquired the meanings ‘document, instruction’, e.g., (3a)–(3b), ‘matter, document’, e.g., (3c), and ‘warrant, license’, e.g., (3d): (3a) spr nˁm śśwm ‘(book of) instructions about the health of horses’ (1.85:1) (3b) spr dbḥ ẓlm ‘(record of) instructions for the sacrifice of the spirits’ (1.161:1) (3c) spr šảb mq[dšt] ‘document concerning the water carriers of the sanctuary’ (6.25:1) 10 (3d) spr mlk ‘royal warrant’ (3.12:13; see also 3.12:9) Ugaritic had only one substantive spr: in poetry it is used twice for ‘number, inventory’; in prose it is used in administrative See also 4.181:1; 4.369:1; 4.610 I 1; etc. The semantic link ‘count– recount = tell’ (cf. bank teller) / Zahl–erzählen, etc., is widely attested crosslinguistically. The interference of the Akkadian lexeme šipru/ šipirtu ‘message, instruction; commission, report, task’; cf. CAD (Š 3: 73–84), presumably an early loan, indeed led to convergence with the Northwest Semitic derivative *sipru; cf. the discussion in Notarius (forthcoming). See also 4.120:1; 6.24:1; 6.29:1; etc. From חוּל ַ to ַר פ ֶ ס ֵ and Back and procedural discourse dozens of times (approx. 80 occurrences), meaning both ‘list, record, register, account, document, inventory’ and ‘matter, instruction’. The lexeme that intersects semantically with spr ‘written document’ is lḥt ‘tablet-letter, message’. 11 On the surface, lḥt and spr demonstrate different distributions: if spr is used in administrative and procedural texts, lḥt is attested in correspondence; see ex. (4). I have counted up to 19 cases of lḥt referring to the content of a letter, i.e., ‘message from / about’, as in (4a), or to the ‘tablet-letter’ itself, i.e., ‘letter concerning’, as in (4b). In poetry there is one usage of lḥt ‘tablet(s)’, phrased with mlảk ‘message’ (4c): (4a) lḥt šlm d lỉkt ‘message of greeting that (she) sent’ (2.34:5–6) 12 (4b) w lḥt bt mlk ảmr ‘and the letter (about) the daughter of the king of TN’ (2.72:17) 13 (4c) lḥt mlảk ym ‘the letter-message of DN’ (1.2 I 26) Although most usages of spr ‘written record’ are in procedural, economic, and administrative texts, occasionally (five times) spr occurs in correspondence with the meaning ‘writing’ See DULAT (490). According to Fox (2003, 76), lḥ is an isolated Proto-Semitic nominal lexeme. See also 2.39:17; 2.45:22–23; 2.46:10; 2.73:7, 12. See also 2.31:43; 2.72:23; 2.87:18; 2.90:4; 2.98:31; 2.100:14, 16; 2.103:11, 12, 17; 2.104:11. (5a), occasionally overlapping with lḥt in the meaning ‘message’, as in (5b)–(5c), although the lexeme lḥt ‘message’ also overlaps with mlảk(t); cf. exs. (5c)–(5d). In one case both words are grouped together as the phrase lḥt spr ‘the tablet-letter of a message’, an equivalent of the poetic lḥt mlảk; compare (5e) with (4c) above: (5a) b spr štnn ‘put it in writing’ (2.108:14) 14 (5b) k ytnt spr hnd ˁmk ‘when I gave this message (to be delivered) to you’ (2.88:5) (5c) lḥt qnỉm d lik[t . bt . m]lk ‘the message concerning lapis lazuli that the daughter of the king has sent’ (2.73:7) (5d) [w] mlảktk ʕmy l likt ‘and your message to me you did not send’ (2.36:11) (5e) ỉky lḥt spr d lỉkt ‘what about the message tablet that I sent?’ (2.14:6–7) Ugaritic spr also corresponds to Akkadian ṭuppu in the meaning of ‘register, writing’; cf. (6a)–(6b) for parallel cases in Ugaritic and in the Akkadian of Ugarit: (6a) spr ảrgmn špšַ ‘record of the tribute(s) to the Sun [= Hittite king]’ (4.610 I 1) || [ṭup-pu an-nu-ú] ša ַ ma-an-da[-at DINGIR.]UTU-ši (PRU 4 47 [RS 11.732]:1) (6b) št b spr ˁmy See also 2.10:19 (cf. 1.179:43 broken); cf. w ảt lḥt rgm[ “and you pronounce the letter” (2.73:12). From חוּל ַ to ַר פ ֶ ס ֵ and Back ‘put into writing for me’ (2.10:19) || i-na ṭup-pí šu-uk-un-ni (PRU 6 18 [RS 19:53]:12) The summary chart shows that Ugaritic lḥt is a technical word for ‘tablet-letter, message’, used once in poetry and many times in correspondence (18 times), while spr is a term for ‘counting’ in poetry (twice) and for both ‘list, inventory’ and ‘instruction, document’ in administrative and procedural discourse (about 80 times). The lexeme spr makes its first steps into the genre of correspondence in the meaning ‘writing; letter-message’ (five cases are attested), extending its functions at the expense of lḥt. Seen within the broader NWS context, Ugaritic attests the very beginning of the process: Table 1 administrative, poetry letters lḥt ‘tablet’ ‘tablet-letter, message’ ≈ 87 ≈ 80 spr ‘counting’ ‘writing, message’ ‘list, inventory; procedural discourse — instruction, document’ 2.0. ח ַ וּ ַ ל ַ in Biblical Hebrew In BH there are 191 cases of ר פ ֶ ס, ֵ referring to some kind of written document—‘inscription, letter, written document, record, book’; 15 in CBH it is a default term for ‘letter, message’, in clear contrast to Ugaritic: (7a) ל ִ א ֵ֑ ֵ ר ְָ שׂ י ִ ַ ךְ ל ֶ מ־ל ֶ֣ ֶ א ֶ ַ ר פ ֶ ס ֵ ַ ה ח ָ֥ ְָ ל שׁ א ִֶ ו ‘so that I may send a letter to the king of Israel’ (2 Kgs 5.5 + many) (7b) מ ִ [ רשה ַ ירפס ַ] תאו [ ַ כ ִ למה ַ ר ] פס ַ ת [ א ִ ַ ינדא · חלש · יכ ‘that my lord sent (him) th[e] king’s [lett]er and the officials’ letter[s’ (Lachish 6.3–4) In Hebrew epigraphy there are up to 19 cases of ר פ ֶ ס ֵ ‘letter’ in the correspondence from Lachish; cf. example (7b); 16 the word חוּל ַ does not seem to be attested at all in Hebrew epigraphy. 17 See HALOT (766–67): the lexeme is used about 142 times in CBH and Transitional Biblical Hebrew (TBH) and 49 time in explicitly late books. Other terms in CBH include: ןוֹי ְִָלּ גּ ‘tablet’ (Isa. 3.23; 8.1); cf. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Hawley%2C+Pardee%2C+and+Roche%2DHawley+%282015%2C+252%29+derive+this+noun+from+the+root+s%2Dp%2Dr+%E2%80%98count%E2%80%99+and+observe+%28note+64%29%3A+From+%D7%97%D7%95%D6%BC%D7%9C+%D6%B7+to+%D6%B7%D7%A8+%D7%A4+%D6%B6+%D7%A1+%D6%B5+and+Back+%281a%29+%E1%B8%ABp%E1%B9%AF+d+bl+spr+%E1%B9%AFnn+d+bl+hg+%E2%80%98mercenaries+without+n)
158. Williamson (2011), ה ְִָלּ ִ ג מ ַ ‘scroll’ used mainly in TBH (in Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Zechariah) and with symbolic meaning; cf. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Williamson+%282011%29%2C+%D7%94+%D6%B4%D6%B0%D6%B8%EF%AC%BC+%D6%B4+%D7%92+%D7%9E+%D6%B7+%E2%80%98scroll%E2%80%99+used+mainly+in+TBH+%28in+Jeremiah%2C+Ezekiel%2C+Zechariah%29+and+with+symbolic+meaning%3B+cf%2E)
159. Hurvitz (1996). The term ב תּ ְִָ ִ כ מּ ִ ‘writing’ is used nine times in both corpus parts and can also mean ‘letter’. The cases are counted with the help of the Accordance software; cf. also Aḥituv (2008, 498); Davies, Bockmuehl, and Lacey (1991, 450–51; 2004, 202); Dobbs-Allsopp (2005, 715). In Deir-Alla I.1 the lexeme is used for the title of a long composition ]ם[ע]לב[ִרפס ‘the book of Bilʿam’. The lexeme חול is relatively rare in ancient Northwest Semitic epigraphy. In Imperial Aramaic the lexeme is attested three times, in quite broken contexts: twice in the same text as a product with measurements: ִיתפ 2 + 3 ןמא הרחא חול ]...ה[דוד ִ 1 ִהמאִיתפִגלפו 3 + 3 + 3 ןמא הרחא חול ִוגב ]. ..ִך [ שפִהדוד ִ 1 ]ִךשפ ִ 1 ִהמ[א ‘herein: another board, (length), nine cubits and a half; width, one cubit; thickne[ss, four handbreadths], another board, (length), five cubits; width, [one] cu[bit], one[ handbreadth]; thickness, [x] handbrea[dths]’ (TAD D3 26.3–4) and once apparently From חוּל ַ to ַר פ ֶ ס ֵ and Back ח ַ וּ ל ‘tablet, plank’ is used 43 times in the Bible—among them, just once in an explicit LBH composition, parallel to a classical usage: ex. (8a); cf. also another time in the poetic Song 8.9 in the meaning ‘plank’. The rest of the cases are in CBH, particularly in the Pentateuch and in poetry; this is an explicitly classical literary usage. Most of cases in Pentateuch (plus one in 1 Kgs 8.9) refer to the two ן ַ ב ֶ א ֶ ה ָ תֹח ל ֻ ‘stone tablets’, called ת ד ֻ ע ֵ ה ָ תֹח ל ֻ ‘tablets of testimony’ in Exodus and תי ר ִ בּ ַ ה ַ ַ תֹח וּ ל in Deuteronomy ‘tablets [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Hurvitz+%281996%29%2E+The+term+%D7%91+%EF%AD%8A+%D6%B4%D6%B0%D6%B8+%D6%B4+%D7%9B+%EF%AC%BE+%D6%B4+%E2%80%98writing%E2%80%99+is+used+nine+times+in+both+corpus+parts+and+can+also+mean+%E2%80%98letter%E2%80%99%2E+The+cases+are+counted+with+the+help+of+the+Accordance+software%3B+cf%2E+also+Ah%CC%A3ituv+)