Jump to content


Photo

Incorrect Greek Details in Acts 10-11

Acts 11

  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 dlr

dlr

    Member

  • Active Members
  • Pip
  • 11 posts
  • Accordance Version:10.x

Posted 06 September 2012 - 12:43 PM

If one goes to Acts 10.14 or 11.8 in the tagged GNT and scrolls over Peter's response "μηδαμος" (certainly not), the instant details given are problematic.
The instant details say that this form comes from μη, δε, and εγω. However, Liddell Scott record that the form actually comes from μηδε and αμος.
It is a classical term that only occurs twice in the GNT. I think Liddell Scott is correct and the instant details need changing.

Thanks
d

#2 Julie Falling

Julie Falling

    Platinum

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,398 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Tennessee
  • Interests:Numerous!
  • Accordance Version:11.x

Posted 06 September 2012 - 01:17 PM

Thanks for posting this. I've added a note at those verses as a reminder.

Julia Falling

 

Accordance 11

MacBook Air Yosemite

mid-2013 1.7 GHz Intel Core i7 (2 cores)

8 GB RAM; 512 G SSD

 

Mac mini Yosemite Acc 11

late-2012 2.3GHz Intel Core i7 (4 cores)

16 GB RAM; 1.12  TB Fusion Drive

 

iPad Air 1 iOS 8.1

64 GB

 

 

 

 


#3 Helen Brown

Helen Brown

    Mithril

  • Admin
  • 8,499 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:heart in Israel
  • Accordance Version:11.x

Posted 06 September 2012 - 01:50 PM

If the scholars agree, this is an error in the tagging of the text.

With Accordance 9.5.3 and up you can report a correction from the program by highlighting the text and going to the Help or the right-click menu. This is intended for typos, misreadings, and other types of corrections to the text ortool module, not a way to report bugs.
Helen Brown
OakTree Software

#4 dlr

dlr

    Member

  • Active Members
  • Pip
  • 11 posts
  • Accordance Version:10.x

Posted 06 September 2012 - 02:46 PM

Thanks Helen. I'll have to check out that feature.

d

#5 James Tucker

James Tucker

    Platinum

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 644 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Accordance Version:10.x

Posted 06 September 2012 - 06:04 PM

I wouldn't see the instant details as incorrect, for several reasons. The most important reason is that, yes although Middle-Liddell ascribes the lemma as that of μηδᾰμῶς, this form is an adverbial derivative that are morphologically dependent on on the pronominal forms. Thus, in the tagging schema, adjectival forms are tagged with the lemma of the pronoun (as the schema also does for the adjectival forms of ἐμός, ὑμέτερος, etc.).

Edited by James Tucker, 06 September 2012 - 09:50 PM.


#6 dlr

dlr

    Member

  • Active Members
  • Pip
  • 11 posts
  • Accordance Version:10.x

Posted 07 September 2012 - 10:07 AM

Thanks for interacting James. You've kind of got a point, but the pronoun in question (if indeed there is one) is not εγω but rather τις. The relevant pages in the big Liddell (I'm using the 1985 9th edition) are 1124, 85, and 75.

1124 is the entry for μηδαμα (μηδαμως is listed in the morphologies). It is adverbial, as you say. I'm not sure why you then say its adjectival.

On p85, there is possible evidence that αμος is related to a pronoun (but derivation is not the nature of that relationship). The lexicon tells us that αμος is used for εμος (that does not mean derived from or dependent on) and is semantically equivalent with τις. If one keeps looking, one will find that this form has evolved from an old Doric form (αμα on pg 75) that explicitly connotes time in adverbial relationships.

So, there are 2 views of this etymology- one including a relationship with the pronoun τις (though "morphologically dependent upon" is not in view) and the other tracing the odd suffix back to a Doric form that explicitly does time jobs. I think the latter view has more weight, and explains why this old word is do infrequent in the GNT.

To the tagging- at the very least, I think εγω should be replaced with τις in the instant details. I have not found any mention of εγω when looking into this etymology. If you still defend the use of εγω in this instance, I ask that you please give a reference, so all may be blessed.

Thanks
d
  • Abram K-J likes this

#7 dlr

dlr

    Member

  • Active Members
  • Pip
  • 11 posts
  • Accordance Version:10.x

Posted 12 September 2012 - 01:07 PM

So have the Accordance scholars come to a consensus yet?

#8 Rick Bennett

Rick Bennett

    Platinum

  • Accordance
  • 1,877 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tampa Bay, FL
  • Interests: gadgets, coffee, running and cycling, Rays baseball
  • Accordance Version:10.x

Posted 12 September 2012 - 02:14 PM

So have the Accordance scholars come to a consensus yet?


The tagging is maintained largely by one of our scholars who rarely checks the forum…if it hasn't been already, we'll forward it to him to check.

Rick Bennett
Director of Content Development
iOS Working Group





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users