venicebard
I have it now and have been using it as an adjunct to my Davidson. It does not give etymological information of any kind, and it does not claim to be exhaustive. However, it has a usefulness of its own: it identifies with symbols whether the word -- or individual meaning ascribed thereto -- is biblical, talmudic, medieval, or modern: this allows some notion of how the language has evolved -- and it presents a nice little summary of the history of Hebrew in the front of the book -- and will prove doubly useful once I get back to Jastrow (still haven't received that yet) and the Mark Filipas hypothesis. (Whether I can pull myself back to that before making a stab at parsing the vocabulary of ancient Egyptian as to root-initials, I don't know, as I can feel that pull already! but I'll try.)kwaw said:I haven't obtained the Grossman as yet [if you do please let me know your opionion of it and whether it is worth getting in addition to the Jastrow and Brown-Driver-Briggs].
Meanings are given concisely, allowing enough room for its comprehensiveness as to vocabulary. I have found one or two discrepancies with Davidson, in which I tend to trust the Davidson, although with the latter one must of course make allowance for the fact that it is from an Anglican (evidently) perspective, causing it the occasional humorous gaff, such as adding the term "Christ" to the explanation of the meaning of the Hebrew word for messiah. But all in all, the Davidson is the result of careful scholarship and quite appropriate for the study I am making (listing all meanings under the root whence they are derived and giving tips concerning etymology of words). I'm glad I got the Grossman myself, but you will have to decide if it would serve your needs or not.