A relatively straightforward research question in the study of dead languages is of the form: "We have root XYZ that means A in context P and B in context Q. How can we generalise A and B to arrive at a general meaning for XYZ?" The question can be approached both from a diachronic perspective ("How did meanings A and B derive from older, more general meaning C?") and from a synchronic perspective ("What do A and B have in common, and what aspects characterise both?").

An example of a diachronic approach would be Gluck (1976). The root lḥm in Hebrew and in the Semitic languages. OTSWA (19), pp. 41–43. An example of a synchronic approach would be Kotzé (2016). Comments on the Uses and Meanings of אין in the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible: Revisiting Vriezen. Hebrew Studies (57), pp. 17–38.

How would I call such a study, particularly one with a synchronic approach?


Describing the meaning of a word (lemma/root) is what a lexicographer does. So I'd call this a lexicographic study.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.