search the same word in WTM twice ?

[andley]

I was told that פשׁר occurred 30+ times in the book of Daniel,
but when I try to search it in WTM(w/o search limit), BW returns with only one hit(Ecc 8:1)

after some digging then I realized that I have to type
.פשׁר@%* to find all the verses because it was coded as Aramaic

so my question is: do I have to search twice in WTM ?

Thanks,
-Andley.

[SkipB]

If you are searching in WTM without morphological tags it will default to Hebrew, which is indicated by the @ sign.
To find an Aramaic word you need to use % in the place of the @.
You can use the cl search phrase </פשׁר *@פשׁר%*> of course do not include angle brackets.
The / is an or search so you can look for either Hebrew or Aramaic forms.
Hope this helps

[andley]

thanks, it helps.

BTW, one further question --- as a new student to Hebrew(Aramaic not yet), is there a way that I can know when should I use <*> and when should I use <%> in WTM search?

ps. a search <.*%*> shows that, other than the book of Daniel/Ezr, Gen 31:47 and Jer 10:11 both contain Aramaic --- which concerns me the more: should I always search for BOTH to play safe ?

thanks again !

[COLOR=#fafafa !important]

[/COLOR]

[SkipB]

It helps to understand the morphological coding system.
פִשְׁרֵה at the end of Daniel 2:9 is listed in WTM as:
פְּשַׁר %ncmsc+S3msExHxNxxRx
the % character means that it is Aramaic noun common masculine singular construct (ncmsc) + introduces extra codes in this case the only important ones are S for suffix 3ms for third person masculine singular.
Compare to
פֵּשֶׁר in Ecclesiastes 8:1
פֵּשֶׁר @ncmsc+SxxxExHxNxxRx
the @ indicates an Hebrew word, also a noun, common masc Singular construct there is no Suffix so there are x's as place holders after the suffix code (S)
The Remaining Codes are for paragogic endings homonyms editorial notes and indicate kethiv/qere readings.

Usually you use the search feature to look for something you can describe with morph code, so you do not often need to use both Hebrew and Aramaic

[andley]

got it. Thanks !

[jdarlack]

a search <.*%*> shows that, other than the book of Daniel/Ezr, Gen 31:47 and Jer 10:11 both contain Aramaic --- which concerns me the more: should I always search for BOTH to play safe?

Hmm... I'm all for 'playing it safe', but I don't know if you'd want to necessarily 'play it safe' in the sense performing a search like this. Hebrew and Aramaic are two different languages. It would probably be better to keep your lexical studies in Hebrew and Aramaic separate. While they're both Semitic languages, they are not the same. You can use Aramaic to inform your understanding of a particular Hebrew word and vice versa, but I would not simply assume that what you find regarding an Aramaic word is directly applicable to your lexical study in Hebrew.

Later edit:

Out of curiosity, I looked a little closer (I wasn't paying attention to the actual word you were looking at). In the case of פשׁר, you, of course, would want to go into Aramaic! HALOT states it's an Aramaic loanword and only lists the one occurrence in Ecclesiastes (and another in Sirach). If you look up in the Aramaic vol. of HALOT, it gives more information. (A big Homer Simpson 'Doh!' to me for not paying closer attention.)

[andley]

Jim,

thanks for the advice !
i think you are right -- Hebrew and Aramaic should not be confused ... and HALOT does provide the clue (Holladay seems to be silent in this case, though)

God bless,
-Andley.

[COLOR=#fafafa !important]

[/COLOR]

[DavidR]

thanks, it helps.

BTW, one further question --- as a new student to Hebrew(Aramaic not yet), is there a way that I can know when should I use <*> and when should I use <%> in WTM search?

ps. a search <.*%*> shows that, other than the book of Daniel/Ezr, Gen 31:47 and Jer 10:11 both contain Aramaic --- which concerns me the more: should I always search for BOTH to play safe ?

Actually, using this search you've successfully located all the Aramaic in the Old Testament! No need to always search for both. If you're looking for Aramaic words specifically, you can actually limit the search range to exactly those passages, using either of the following methods.

• Through the menu system: Search > Set Search Limits (or click the row of green/yellow boxes below the Command Line and select Choose Search Limits), then in the dialog click "Limit the search using a custom search range" and select Aramaic at the top of the list of Predefined Ranges.
• On the Command Line: type "l Aramaic" (without the quotation marks).

[andley]

Actually, using this search you've successfully located all the Aramaic in the Old Testament! No need to always search for both. If you're looking for Aramaic words specifically, you can actually limit the search range to exactly those passages, using either of the following methods.

• Through the menu system: Search > Set Search Limits (or click the row of green/yellow boxes below the Command Line and select Choose Search Limits), then in the dialog click "Limit the search using a custom search range" and select Aramaic at the top of the list of Predefined Ranges.
• On the Command Line: type "l Aramaic" (without the quotation marks).

Thanks for the info. But my deficiency, due to lack of Aramaic training, is that I don't know whether פשׁר is Hebrew or Aramaic .... so the "Arm. loanword ..." in HALOT really helps --- as it cues me to conduct a second search in Aramaic.

[SkipB]

Andley, it is not as complicated as it seems, and I am probably oversimplifying, but: Loan words are still Hebrew words, you will pick them up in a Hebrew search. The problem with your first search was that you were searching for a word that is used in an Aramaic section of the Hebrew scriptures. It is helpful to know where Aramaic portions occur. Basically with the exception of a large portion of Daniel, it is confined to reports of correspondence. They occur in post-exilic contexts. But an Aramaic word used outside of an Aramaic portion is usually categorized as a Hebrew word, borrowed from Aramaic. But you will find those in a Hebrew search. It is not difficult to tell if you are looking at an Aramaic section, the morphology of Aramaic is strikingly different.

For the most part you are safe, working in the Hebrew sections, without an extensive familiarity with the Aramaic.