Since the time of Gesenius, scholars have rightly grounded their determinations of linguistic dating of the biblical texts on the comparison of pairs of features that can be contrasted as early and late. However, at times Hebraists also identify terms as indicative of either Classical Biblical Hebrew (CBH) or Late Biblical Hebrew (LBH) on account of their relatively exclusive occurrence in either one corpus or the other. In this study I demonstrate the propensity of scholars to identify such terms in an impressionistic manner and unwittingly fall victim to a probability illusion long known by cognitive psychologists as the small sample fallacy. Conversely, I will show that in seeking lexical terms that are indicative of CBH and LBH respectively, they overlook other terms that are far more indicative and significant from a statistical perspective. To arrive at these conclusions, I employ data generated by the recently launched Tiberias Stylistic Classifier for the Hebrew Bible. Tiberias marshals cutting edge advances in the field of machine learning and computational linguistics to empower users to easily conduct their own experiments analysing and classifying the texts of the Hebrew Bible through the measurable features of linguistic data, and providing them with verifiable results. As an illustration of what is at stake, I reference the debate surrounding the linguistic profile of Genesis 24.
{"title":"Determining the Significance of Lexical Features as Indicative of CBH and LBH: Insights from the Tiberias Stylistic Classifier for the Hebrew Bible","authors":"Joshua Berman","doi":"10.25159/2663-6573/9302","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.25159/2663-6573/9302","url":null,"abstract":"Since the time of Gesenius, scholars have rightly grounded their determinations of linguistic dating of the biblical texts on the comparison of pairs of features that can be contrasted as early and late. However, at times Hebraists also identify terms as indicative of either Classical Biblical Hebrew (CBH) or Late Biblical Hebrew (LBH) on account of their relatively exclusive occurrence in either one corpus or the other. In this study I demonstrate the propensity of scholars to identify such terms in an impressionistic manner and unwittingly fall victim to a probability illusion long known by cognitive psychologists as the small sample fallacy. Conversely, I will show that in seeking lexical terms that are indicative of CBH and LBH respectively, they overlook other terms that are far more indicative and significant from a statistical perspective. To arrive at these conclusions, I employ data generated by the recently launched Tiberias Stylistic Classifier for the Hebrew Bible. Tiberias marshals cutting edge advances in the field of machine learning and computational linguistics to empower users to easily conduct their own experiments analysing and classifying the texts of the Hebrew Bible through the measurable features of linguistic data, and providing them with verifiable results. As an illustration of what is at stake, I reference the debate surrounding the linguistic profile of Genesis 24.","PeriodicalId":42047,"journal":{"name":"Journal for Semitics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41908651","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This study proposes a novel semantics for the Biblical Hebrew qatal form that includes both perfective and perfect/anterior meanings. I begin by evaluating other theories of qatal and give six criteria with which they might be evaluated, showing past analyses to be inadequate. These criteria are given as an external check on what makes a satisfactory analysis more generally, and though we can learn from past contributions, they ultimately fall short in one of these six areas. In contrast, I show that my theory meets these six criteria for what makes an adequate theory. The single meaning that I give for the qatal form is labelled a “perfect,” which I define as an aspectual form that refers to a temporal interval in which either a state holds with a possible preceding event or an event takes place that potentially precedes a state. This is qatal’s particular contribution to the context, though it may have different interpretations as it interacts with various verbal predicates and syntactic and discourse contexts. With this meaning, I account for all the temporal uses of qatal as well as the more difficult optative/precative and counterfactual interpretations. While qatal’s varied uses are recognised and explained, we are able to hold to a single meaning for the form, which is the simplest explanation possible, and this meaning is shown to be typologically and historically plausible.
{"title":"The Meaning of Qatal","authors":"Kevin Grasso","doi":"10.25159/2663-6573/9299","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.25159/2663-6573/9299","url":null,"abstract":"This study proposes a novel semantics for the Biblical Hebrew qatal form that includes both perfective and perfect/anterior meanings. I begin by evaluating other theories of qatal and give six criteria with which they might be evaluated, showing past analyses to be inadequate. These criteria are given as an external check on what makes a satisfactory analysis more generally, and though we can learn from past contributions, they ultimately fall short in one of these six areas. In contrast, I show that my theory meets these six criteria for what makes an adequate theory. The single meaning that I give for the qatal form is labelled a “perfect,” which I define as an aspectual form that refers to a temporal interval in which either a state holds with a possible preceding event or an event takes place that potentially precedes a state. This is qatal’s particular contribution to the context, though it may have different interpretations as it interacts with various verbal predicates and syntactic and discourse contexts. With this meaning, I account for all the temporal uses of qatal as well as the more difficult optative/precative and counterfactual interpretations. While qatal’s varied uses are recognised and explained, we are able to hold to a single meaning for the form, which is the simplest explanation possible, and this meaning is shown to be typologically and historically plausible.","PeriodicalId":42047,"journal":{"name":"Journal for Semitics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49404257","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Partial agreement refers to sentences that have conjoined subjects but a singular verb. Although word order is commonly cited in the Biblical Hebrew literature as affecting partial agreement, there is no consensus regarding such an effect. This syntactic study of all clauses with a compound subject in Genesis–2 Kings reveals that a singular verb always agrees with the initial conjunct. The results are incorporated in a cross-linguistic typology of partial agreement. Other key results are that only a coordinate compound headed by an R-expression (rather than a pronoun) is a subject, and that partial agreement is the dominant pattern when the verb and first conjunct are contiguous. A two-step process of Agree—first in syntax and then in phonology—is able to produce the optional partial agreement patterns, laying a better foundation for future studies to analyse the semantic and discourse-analysis effects on verb agreement.
{"title":"A Re-examination of Verb Agreement with Conjoined Subjects in Biblical Hebrew","authors":"Jesse Scheumann","doi":"10.25159/2663-6573/9295","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.25159/2663-6573/9295","url":null,"abstract":"Partial agreement refers to sentences that have conjoined subjects but a singular verb. Although word order is commonly cited in the Biblical Hebrew literature as affecting partial agreement, there is no consensus regarding such an effect. This syntactic study of all clauses with a compound subject in Genesis–2 Kings reveals that a singular verb always agrees with the initial conjunct. The results are incorporated in a cross-linguistic typology of partial agreement. Other key results are that only a coordinate compound headed by an R-expression (rather than a pronoun) is a subject, and that partial agreement is the dominant pattern when the verb and first conjunct are contiguous. A two-step process of Agree—first in syntax and then in phonology—is able to produce the optional partial agreement patterns, laying a better foundation for future studies to analyse the semantic and discourse-analysis effects on verb agreement.","PeriodicalId":42047,"journal":{"name":"Journal for Semitics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44749548","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In previous studies of the collective noun in Hebrew, collectives have been treated as a homogeneous group of nouns. Collectives have been defined as a noun that refers to a group of real-world entities and is grammatically singular. Sometimes included in this discussion are mass nouns and proper nouns. This article argues that mass nouns and proper nouns should not be included as part of the discussion about collective nouns. Then it seeks to apply the research of Joosten et al. on Dutch collective nouns to Biblical Hebrew. Joosten identifies three types of collective nouns. First, Type 1 nouns focus on the collection as a whole. On the other end of the spectrum are Type 3 nouns which focus on the members of a collection. Type 2 nouns have the flexibility to refer to the collection in one context, while in others it can have a member focus. Using a sampling of collectives that appear in Deuteronomy, this article uses attributives, demonstratives, and cardinal numbers to help identify collective nouns in Biblical Hebrew using Joosten’s categories. Observing these syntactical elements alongside collectives this article shows that Type 1 nouns will have agreement between adjectives and collectives. Type 3 nouns will have disagreement. Type 2 nouns will, depending on the focus, have either agreement or disagreement.
{"title":"Defining Collective Nouns: How Cognitive Linguistics Can Help Hebrew Grammarians","authors":"Dougald W. McLaurin","doi":"10.25159/2663-6573/9288","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.25159/2663-6573/9288","url":null,"abstract":"In previous studies of the collective noun in Hebrew, collectives have been treated as a homogeneous group of nouns. Collectives have been defined as a noun that refers to a group of real-world entities and is grammatically singular. Sometimes included in this discussion are mass nouns and proper nouns. This article argues that mass nouns and proper nouns should not be included as part of the discussion about collective nouns. Then it seeks to apply the research of Joosten et al. on Dutch collective nouns to Biblical Hebrew. Joosten identifies three types of collective nouns. First, Type 1 nouns focus on the collection as a whole. On the other end of the spectrum are Type 3 nouns which focus on the members of a collection. Type 2 nouns have the flexibility to refer to the collection in one context, while in others it can have a member focus. Using a sampling of collectives that appear in Deuteronomy, this article uses attributives, demonstratives, and cardinal numbers to help identify collective nouns in Biblical Hebrew using Joosten’s categories. Observing these syntactical elements alongside collectives this article shows that Type 1 nouns will have agreement between adjectives and collectives. Type 3 nouns will have disagreement. Type 2 nouns will, depending on the focus, have either agreement or disagreement.","PeriodicalId":42047,"journal":{"name":"Journal for Semitics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42754627","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The article contrasts two views of “land” in two texts which both originated in priestly circles. The first text is the Priestly creation narrative, and here the article leans heavily on the work of Norman Habel and the Earth Bible Project. For Habel, Genesis 1 is the story of the loss of partnership between God and Earth. The article then describes the portrayal of the “land of Canaan” or “Erets Canaan” in the Holiness Legislation and shows how the old partnership is remembered and rekindled. In the second part of the article the earlier work of Esias Meyer is used. The objective of this article is to contrast these two views of relationship to land and to make clear that the Holiness Legislation is much less anthropocentric than its Priestly predecessor in Genesis 1.
{"title":"Partnership Remembered: Erets Canaan as Co Provider and Co-Enforcer in H","authors":"Esias Meyer","doi":"10.25159/2663-6573/9070","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.25159/2663-6573/9070","url":null,"abstract":"The article contrasts two views of “land” in two texts which both originated in priestly circles. The first text is the Priestly creation narrative, and here the article leans heavily on the work of Norman Habel and the Earth Bible Project. For Habel, Genesis 1 is the story of the loss of partnership between God and Earth. The article then describes the portrayal of the “land of Canaan” or “Erets Canaan” in the Holiness Legislation and shows how the old partnership is remembered and rekindled. In the second part of the article the earlier work of Esias Meyer is used. The objective of this article is to contrast these two views of relationship to land and to make clear that the Holiness Legislation is much less anthropocentric than its Priestly predecessor in Genesis 1.","PeriodicalId":42047,"journal":{"name":"Journal for Semitics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43718223","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The cognitive approach to metaphor has faced many challenges: one of these challenges is a lack of more cross-linguistic and cross-cultural research that needs to be done to better understand the claim of the cognitive approach that abstract concepts and abstract reasoning are partly metaphorical. This paper provides evidence that a universal spatial metaphorical system exists (the claim of Cognitive Linguistics) and shows that the theory of conceptual metaphor accommodates the findings to a certain extent. However, this theory of conceptual metaphor does not account for the entire Biblical Hebrew conceptual system and needs to be rethought. This study extends the existing knowledge of conceptual metaphor. Specifically, it expands the knowledge concerning verbs conflating a bipolar conceptual component, that is, MOTION and PATH. This study discusses evidence from the Hebrew Bible, and argues that the Biblical Hebrew verbs (yrd) (descend) and ('lh)(ascend)’s bipolar lexical concepts MOTION DOWN and MOTION UP, respectively, may split into two unipolar lexical concepts MOTION and DOWN and MOTION and UP, respectively, and in which only one unipolar lexical concept, that is DOWN or UP, respectively, is used for metaphorical conceptual mapping.
{"title":"Unipolar Conceptual Metaphors in Biblical Hebrew","authors":"At Lamprecht","doi":"10.25159/2663-6573/9563","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.25159/2663-6573/9563","url":null,"abstract":"The cognitive approach to metaphor has faced many challenges: one of these challenges is a lack of more cross-linguistic and cross-cultural research that needs to be done to better understand the claim of the cognitive approach that abstract concepts and abstract reasoning are partly metaphorical. This paper provides evidence that a universal spatial metaphorical system exists (the claim of Cognitive Linguistics) and shows that the theory of conceptual metaphor accommodates the findings to a certain extent. However, this theory of conceptual metaphor does not account for the entire Biblical Hebrew conceptual system and needs to be rethought. This study extends the existing knowledge of conceptual metaphor. Specifically, it expands the knowledge concerning verbs conflating a bipolar conceptual component, that is, MOTION and PATH. This study discusses evidence from the Hebrew Bible, and argues that the Biblical Hebrew verbs (yrd) (descend) and ('lh)(ascend)’s bipolar lexical concepts MOTION DOWN and MOTION UP, respectively, may split into two unipolar lexical concepts MOTION and DOWN and MOTION and UP, respectively, and in which only one unipolar lexical concept, that is DOWN or UP, respectively, is used for metaphorical conceptual mapping.","PeriodicalId":42047,"journal":{"name":"Journal for Semitics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44363125","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In the Wisdom of Solomon, with special reference to chapters 6 to 10, wisdom is personified as a woman. This image is quite often found, especially in the wisdom literature. In the Wisdom of Solomon, Sophia is portrayed as a person who can speak, act, and feel, but most of all someone who can be loved and desired. She is portrayed as someone that is loved alternately by God and by the righteous. In Wisdom 10 Sophia is interwoven in the retelling of the Pentateuchal stories. She is the reason the righteous forefathers made the correct decisions, she protected and preserved them and gave them power, while the unrighteous are portrayed as leaving her and consequently making the wrong decisions. It is also interesting to notice the development in the concept of both wisdom and retribution from the traditional perspectives.
{"title":"A Love Triangle Between God, Sophia, and the Righteous Interwoven in the Retelling of the Pentateuchal Stories in Wisdom 10","authors":"Ananda B. Geyser-Fouché","doi":"10.25159/2663-6573/9217","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.25159/2663-6573/9217","url":null,"abstract":"In the Wisdom of Solomon, with special reference to chapters 6 to 10, wisdom is personified as a woman. This image is quite often found, especially in the wisdom literature. In the Wisdom of Solomon, Sophia is portrayed as a person who can speak, act, and feel, but most of all someone who can be loved and desired. She is portrayed as someone that is loved alternately by God and by the righteous. In Wisdom 10 Sophia is interwoven in the retelling of the Pentateuchal stories. She is the reason the righteous forefathers made the correct decisions, she protected and preserved them and gave them power, while the unrighteous are portrayed as leaving her and consequently making the wrong decisions. It is also interesting to notice the development in the concept of both wisdom and retribution from the traditional perspectives.","PeriodicalId":42047,"journal":{"name":"Journal for Semitics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43621239","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Leviathan and other sea-monsters in the Hebrew Bible have caused great dissonance amongst biblical scholars. No consensus exists amongst them on how to translate the Hebrew words referring to these mythical monsters. Therefore, a tendency developed amongst exegetes to transfigure these mythical beasts into ordinary animals, to translate them in a vague and general way, or to interpret them as mere symbols. This article investigates ways in which the assumed existence of Leviathan is identified and denied. To gain a better understanding of the nature and function of Leviathan, similar creatures in the ancient Near East are highlighted with a focus on sea-monsters and dragons associated with the primeval sea. These findings propose not only a more distinct epitome of Leviathan, but also of other monsters associated with the primeval waters (Rahab, tanninim, behemoth, and dag gadol), as depicted in the Old Testament. These beasts, interpreted against the magico-mythical cosmology of the ancient Near East and the Old Testament, should be seen as mythical creatures assumed to be real by the ancient audience of the biblical text. In striving for fidelity and loyalty to both the text and the current reader, translations should reflect the foreignness of Leviathan and other monsters or dragons to the contemporary reader.
{"title":"Leviathan, Rebuffing the Notion of Being Identified as a Natural Animal?","authors":"Allan Dyssel","doi":"10.25159/2663-6573/9108","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.25159/2663-6573/9108","url":null,"abstract":"Leviathan and other sea-monsters in the Hebrew Bible have caused great dissonance amongst biblical scholars. No consensus exists amongst them on how to translate the Hebrew words referring to these mythical monsters. Therefore, a tendency developed amongst exegetes to transfigure these mythical beasts into ordinary animals, to translate them in a vague and general way, or to interpret them as mere symbols. This article investigates ways in which the assumed existence of Leviathan is identified and denied. To gain a better understanding of the nature and function of Leviathan, similar creatures in the ancient Near East are highlighted with a focus on sea-monsters and dragons associated with the primeval sea. These findings propose not only a more distinct epitome of Leviathan, but also of other monsters associated with the primeval waters (Rahab, tanninim, behemoth, and dag gadol), as depicted in the Old Testament. These beasts, interpreted against the magico-mythical cosmology of the ancient Near East and the Old Testament, should be seen as mythical creatures assumed to be real by the ancient audience of the biblical text. In striving for fidelity and loyalty to both the text and the current reader, translations should reflect the foreignness of Leviathan and other monsters or dragons to the contemporary reader.","PeriodicalId":42047,"journal":{"name":"Journal for Semitics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43270042","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Curriculum Vitae: Prof. S. W. van Heerden","authors":"W. Wessels","doi":"10.25159/2663-6573/9829","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.25159/2663-6573/9829","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":42047,"journal":{"name":"Journal for Semitics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-08-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48641308","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
To Whom Belongs the Land? Leviticus 25 in an African Liberationist Reading, by Ndikho Mtshiselwa Peter Lang. 2018. xviii + pp. 284. ISBN: 978-1-4331-3893-5 https://doi.org/10.3726/978-1-4331-3897-3
土地属于谁?《利未记第25章:非洲解放主义解读》，作者:恩迪科·姆齐塞尔瓦·彼得·朗，2018年出版。Xviii + pp. 284。ISBN: 978-1-4331-3893-5 https://doi.org/10.3726/978-1-4331-3897-3
{"title":"The Socio-legal Praxis of Leviticus 25","authors":"N. Sindane","doi":"10.25159/2663-6573/9517","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.25159/2663-6573/9517","url":null,"abstract":"To Whom Belongs the Land? Leviticus 25 in an African Liberationist Reading, by Ndikho Mtshiselwa \u0000Peter Lang. 2018. xviii + pp. 284.\u0000ISBN: 978-1-4331-3893-5 \u0000https://doi.org/10.3726/978-1-4331-3897-3","PeriodicalId":42047,"journal":{"name":"Journal for Semitics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48043228","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：