I reviewed the HALOT upon which BHSA is based and I think it's different issue. It appears only Psalm 7:1 should be lexeme(KWC=/); all others should most likely be lexeme(KWC/). The CHALOT confuses issue by looking like first is topo and 2nd is person, but HALOT is specific 2nd lexeme applies only to Psalm 7:1 which indeed it is completely different person and 1st applies to all others (Gen 7:6, 7:7, 7:8 etc.)
Thus, KWC/ should have name type (nmtp) expanded to pers, topo whereas KWC=/ should only apply to Psalm 7:1 and should only be name type pers as it is.
There are two lexemes (lex) for Cush. First two uses are nmtp ‘topo’; second two are nmtp pers.
Second usage of Cush in Genesis 10:6 is incorrect lexeme (lex); should be lex (KWC=/) with nmtp of per like verses 7 and 8.
book ch ver monad lex gloss SN (sorting by lex--all previous are same)
...
Psalmi 68 32 321572 KWC/ Cush 71
Psalmi 87 4 325504 KWC/ Cush 9
Chronica_I 1 9 391317 KWC=/ Cush 9
Chronica_I 1 10 391334 KWC=/ Cush 11
Psalmi 7 1 311284 KWC=/ Cush 1
Genesis 10 7 4614 KWC=/ Cush 8
Genesis 10 8 4631 KWC=/ Cush 10
Thanks,
Derek
PS: This makes more sense as all other topo/pers in Genesis like Asshur are all only a single lexeme (some need expanded name type--another issue for later) and is more consistent over all. Always wondered why Cush is different--there's another proper noun, Cush, in Psalm 7:1 that refers to a completely different Cush.
I reviewed the HALOT upon which BHSA is based and I think it's different issue. It appears only Psalm 7:1 should be lexeme(KWC=/); all others should most likely be lexeme(KWC/). The CHALOT confuses issue by looking like first is topo and 2nd is person, but HALOT is specific 2nd lexeme applies only to Psalm 7:1 which indeed it is completely different person and 1st applies to all others (Gen 7:6, 7:7, 7:8 etc.)
Thus, KWC/ should have name type (nmtp) expanded to pers, topo whereas KWC=/ should only apply to Psalm 7:1 and should only be name type pers as it is.
book ch ver monad lex gloss SN (sorting by lex--all previous are same)
...
Psalmi 68 32 321572 KWC/ Cush 71
Psalmi 87 4 325504 KWC/ Cush 9
Chronica_I 1 9 391317 KWC=/ Cush 9
Chronica_I 1 10 391334 KWC=/ Cush 11
Psalmi 7 1 311284 KWC=/ Cush 1
Genesis 10 7 4614 KWC=/ Cush 8
Genesis 10 8 4631 KWC=/ Cush 10
Thanks,
Derek
PS: This makes more sense as all other topo/pers in Genesis like Asshur are all only a single lexeme (some need expanded name type--another issue for later) and is more consistent over all. Always wondered why Cush is different--there's another proper noun, Cush, in Psalm 7:1 that refers to a completely different Cush.