If it is difficult sometimes for BH lexicographers and translators to identify the precise semantic nuance to associate with tri-consonantal patterns/proposed “roots” (let alone consideration of varied nuances between verbal patterns) – hence different lexicons offer different judgments (as to roots I, II, sometimes III, etc., typically based on comparative Semitics and ANE literature, and with different etymological proposals, as well as specific interpretations of BH texts – how much more challenging for many Bible students?
Exx. of “tough calls” placed in the Context menu & RI: At Zech 7.2B, Logos chll root I (vs. II; although lexicons split between “weak” and “entreat”) and at Zech 11:10B Logos prr root II (EVV divided between “annul” and“break/split,” with the latter perhaps being an allusion to Moses' shattering of original tablets).
Q: Since Logos doesn't make value judgments and scatters about information from different sources, which particular lexical source or DB does Logos use, ostensibly as a root "choice," in the Context menu & RI?
(I despair of any answer to the more difficult Q as to how Logos makes varied connections to different homonyms within different lexical sources.)
[Ignore the following, unless curious as to how I came to ask this Q:
Reading the Hebrew text, my initial inclination for the infinitival Pi(el chll was the rather common Root I, “weak,” (same as also found in Context menu and RI).
Next, preferring to understand Piel verbal pattern more as factitive than intensive (based on Waltke/O'Connor, IBHS), I was troubled by the idea of “making God's face weak.”
So then I found another proposed root II (linked to Arabic), “entreat,” in my Logos lexicons (now summarily reflected above, with all 3 homonyms, via Power Look-up [Thanks, MJ.]).
Then, faced with a choice between roots, my general fall-back position – namely, a seemingly far-removed, or lack of, apparent semantic connection could indeed point to a different “root” – led me to think root II here, contrary to Logos Context Menu & RI.
However, a quick look at one commentary (in my Logos library) helped me understand the semantic linkage to root I, as well as see a similar setting in a “Temple” context.
This, in turn, may provide help in unraveling the knotty historical situation/translation for the first half of Zech 7.2 (contrary to many EVV and commentaries).
I leave that the inquisitive....]
P.S. on roots/homonyms: Working with homonyms, one always needs to sail between the perils of “the etymological fallacy” and “illegitimate totality transfer.”
(Also resisting theologically-biased selection among capriciously multiplied “homonyms,” as indulged in by a recent so-called “Translation.”)
Nevertheless, even if pin-pointing precise nuances in texts as present/intentional at particular points in history — i.e., synchronically vs. diachronically — is challenging, such study can sometimes help one “get a sense” of how a word is being used.
(As the popularity of works like ATR's “Word Pictures in the NT” confirms.)
