86 Christo H.J. van der Merwe The aim of this case study is to illustrate some of the insights that can be gained from using a cognitive semantic perspective to describe the meaning potential of a set of lexical items, viz. ≈ma/≈yma, rbg/hrwbg, qzj/hqzj, lyj, jk, z[/zz[ (8). It is obvious from the information provided in most available BH lexica (mainly “translation glosses”) that some of these terms can often, and others in particular instances, be translated either as “be(come) strong”, “strong”, “strength” or “power(ful)”. It is also clear from most of the lexica that these terms are not absolute synonyms. However, the lexica (as well as available theological dictionaries) do not help one to fully understand the relationship and/or differences between the lexical items. The notion “meaning potential” occupies a central position in this paper since I hypothesize that it provides a justifiable theoretical frame of reference for capturing the types of information that should be included in bilingual BH lexica. I will focus in this paper on its contribution, alongside that of the notions “prototypical meaning” and “basic level category”, for better understanding the relationships between ≈ma/≈yma, rbg/hrwbg, qzj/hqzj, lyj, jk and z[/zz[ (9). The paper is organized as follows: I start with a few general observations on a cognitive semantic approach to meaning. Secondly, I give a brief description of those insights of cognitive linguistics that have played a crucial role (at least consciously) in this investigation. Special reference is made to the concept “folk taxonomy” since it is crucial for understanding the notions “basic level category”, “prototypical meaning” and in particular “meaning potential”. Reasons are also given why the latter notion plays such a central role in this study. Thirdly, I explain why qzj/hqzj and jk may be regarded as the “basic level” items for the conceptual category “strong/strength” in Biblical Hebrew. After describing the meaning potential of jk, I discuss the reasons why the other items in the list are not regarded as “basic level” items. I do not attempt to deal exhaustively with the meaning potential of any of these terms. However, with reference to the description of the meaning potential of jk, and drawing on those of the other items of our set (10), I focus on describing the relationship between ≈ma/≈yma, rbg/hrwbg, qzj/hqzj, lyj, jk and z[/zz[. In conclusion I summarize the contribution that this application of a few basic concepts from cognitive semantics has made towards a better understanding of a set of related BH lexical items. (8) In an initial survey I considered including µx[/µwx[. However, on account of its relatively specialized connotation of strength that is associated with multiplicity, I decided to exclude it. As far as its distribution is concerned, the adjective µwx[ occurs 31× in the OT. In only 5 cases does it not act as an attribute of ywg or µ[. For an excellent description of lexical items with the root µx[, cf. G. LOHFINK, “µx[”, TDOT, XI, 289-303. (9) Compare H. RECHENMACHER “Kognitive Linguistik und Althebräische Lexiko- graphie”, JNSL 30/2 (2004) 43-59. He does not explicitly use the term “meaning potential”, but does illustrate the value of insights from cognitive linguistics for the better understanding of set of BH items, viz. hyra, aybl, ljv, rypk, rwg. (10) A descripition of the meaning potential of each of the other items can be obtained at the following website: http://academic.sun.ac.za/as/dokumente/VanderMerwe/Adden dumtoLexicalmeaningandcognitivelinguistics.pdf