90 Christo H.J. van der Merwe meaning potential takes place is referred to by Croft and Cruse (30) as a “dynamic construal of meaning”. For the purposes of this paper I now hypothesize that (a) an analysis and a systematic description of all the occurrences of the lexical items in our set in the Hebrew Bible will make the identification of the meaning potential of each item possible, (b) each lexical item will display a prototypical reading, (c) the notion “basic level category” will point to the most prototypical lexical items for the concepts “strong/strength” in BH and (d) the notion “basic level category” is pivotal for understanding the relationship between a set of semantically related lexical items. 2. Lexical Items with the Label “Strong/Strength” I had compiled all the BH words that are normally translated into English — this is of course a solely heuristic procedure — as “strong, powerful, strength, mighty, etc”. I ended up with the following list, viz. ≈ma/≈yma, rbg/hrwbg, qzj/hqzj, lyj, jk, z[/zz[. The first question is, of course: does one use roots or word forms as point of departure? I opted for the first position, primarily as a heuristic procedure. As a next step I used the theoretical frame of reference of De Blois (31), and the electronic template Vocabula 3.3 to record, where relevant, the morphological features, the syntagmatic distribution, semantic features, near- synonyms and antonyms. Particular attention was paid to the recording of the contextual frame of each occurrence of the above-mentioned lexical items. On the basis of these data, I then described the meaning potential of each of the lexemes, paying special attention to (1) the major distinctions that warrant different definitions as far as their meaning potential is concerned, and (2) prototypical use(s) of each of these distinctions. This was, however, easier said than done. After this semasiological analysis of a list of lexical items, the crucial question from an onomasiological point of view was: are there any specific word form(s) that can unequivocally be regarded as the basic level reading(s) of the category “strong/strength” in Biblical Hebrew? Since we have no mother-tongue speakers of Biblical Hebrew to consult, frequency of use and the widest possible combinational properties that may be an indication of its generic quality were used as criteria. I also considered the observation by Geerarts that basic level items tend to be named by “short morphologically simple terms (32)”. If the latter would be the point of departure, z[o would be our first candidate and, depending on how one understands “short morpho- logically simple terms”, j'Ko may also be a candidate. However, on the basis of an interplay of all three criteria, I found j'Ko and the verbal forms and adjectives (30) CROFT – CRUSE, Cognitive Linguistics, 97-98. (31) R. DE BLOIS, Towards a New Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew Based on Semantic Domains. Doctoral dissertation (Amsterdam 2000); ID., “A Semantic Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew”, Current Trends in Scripture Translation (ed. P.A. NOSS) (Reading 2002) 275-295; ID, “Lexicography and Cognitive Linguistics: Hebrew Metaphors from a Cognitive Perspective”, unpublished article. United Bible Societies, Triannual Translation Workshop, Iguassu Falls (Brazil 2003) 1-17. (32) GEERAERTS, “An Overview”, 312.