Jump to content


Photo

Amount of non-consecutive weqatal in BHS?


  • Please log in to reply
2 replies to this topic

#1 Pchris

Pchris

    Gold

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 232 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Denmark
  • Interests:Old Testament Exegesis, The Ancient Near East, the Hamito-Semitic languages, Ancient Greek, Mythology
  • Accordance Version:11.x
  • Platforms:Mac OS X

Posted Yesterday, 05:27 PM

Hi there!

 

I have a good friend who is specialized in the Hebrew verbal system and its issues. Some time ago he asked me to check how many weqatal forms that have been interpreted by Accordance as NON-consecutive in the entire Hebrew Bible. These were my search criteria in the BHS (Tagged) module:

 

‏ו ‎<FOLLOWED BY>‎<WITHIN 1 Words>‎[VERB perfect -consecutive]‏ 

 

It yielded 1902 hits with the waw's making up half the results, so that gives 951 weqatal forms that are not considered consecutive. These data surprised my friend greatly, who said that there are way too many compared to other concordances (He told me that he expected a figure around 300).

 

My question is: Did I do something wrong in my search or is there an explanation behind these many numbers? On a side note, I did an identical search in the Westminister Biblia Hebraica module which yielded 1916 hits and thus 958 non-consecutive weqatal forms. I would've liked to see exactly where the differences were in the two texts, but I couldn't find a "clever" solution to do so in order to not go through all 1900+ hits manually for both texts. The "add parallel" and "Compare" button didn't work..

 

With kind regards

 

Peter Christensen


Edited by Pchris, Yesterday, 07:19 PM.

Accordance Version: 11.0.4 

Hardware: MacBook Pro 2.6 GHz Intel Core i7 (medio 2012)
Operating System: OSX 10.9.5 Mavericks.


#2 Daniel Semler

Daniel Semler

    Platinum

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,838 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Accordance Version:11.x

Posted Yesterday, 08:55 PM

Hi Peter,

 

  You should be able to do this with two additional tabs one for each text and the following searches. In the new BHS tab do [CONTENTS <first BHS tabname>] <NOT> [CONTENTS <first WBH tabname>]

  Then in the new WBH tab do the reverse query [CONTENTS <first WBH tabname>] <NOT> [CONTENTS <first BHS tabname>].

  Then if either of those tabs shows differences - at least one should - perhaps both will - you can open a parallel pane with the other text and see how the verse differs. Make sure context is set to 0 on all tabs to simplify the display.

 

Thx

D


  • Pchris likes this

Accordance Configurations :
 
Mac : 2009 27" iMac                 Windows : HP 4540s laptop
      Intel Core Duo                          Intel i5 Ivy Bridge
      12GB RAM                                8GB RAM
      Accordance 11.0.1                       Accordance 11.0.1
      OSX 10.9 (Mavericks)                    Win 7 Professional x64 SP1


#3 Pchris

Pchris

    Gold

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 232 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Denmark
  • Interests:Old Testament Exegesis, The Ancient Near East, the Hamito-Semitic languages, Ancient Greek, Mythology
  • Accordance Version:11.x
  • Platforms:Mac OS X

Posted Today, 03:19 AM

Hi there!

 

I have a good friend who is specialized in the Hebrew verbal system and its issues. Some time ago he asked me to check how many weqatal forms that have been interpreted by Accordance as NON-consecutive in the entire Hebrew Bible. These were my search criteria in the BHS (Tagged) module:

 

‏ו ‎<FOLLOWED BY>‎<WITHIN 1 Words>‎[VERB perfect -consecutive]‏ 

 

It yielded 1902 hits with the waw's making up half the results, so that gives 951 weqatal forms that are not considered consecutive. These data surprised my friend greatly, who said that there are way too many compared to other concordances (He told me that he expected a figure around 300).

 

My question is: Did I do something wrong in my search or is there an explanation behind these many numbers? On a side note, I did an identical search in the Westminister Biblia Hebraica module which yielded 1916 hits and thus 958 non-consecutive weqatal forms. I would've liked to see exactly where the differences were in the two texts, but I couldn't find a "clever" solution to do so in order to not go through all 1900+ hits manually for both texts. The "add parallel" and "Compare" button didn't work..

 

With kind regards

 

Peter Christensen

 

 

 

Hi Peter,

 

  You should be able to do this with two additional tabs one for each text and the following searches. In the new BHS tab do [CONTENTS <first BHS tabname>] <NOT> [CONTENTS <first WBH tabname>]

  Then in the new WBH tab do the reverse query [CONTENTS <first WBH tabname>] <NOT> [CONTENTS <first BHS tabname>].

  Then if either of those tabs shows differences - at least one should - perhaps both will - you can open a parallel pane with the other text and see how the verse differs. Make sure context is set to 0 on all tabs to simplify the display.

 

Thx

D

 

 

Thank you so much Daniel, this was exactly what I was looking for. I actually tried making several tabs myself and experimenting a bit with [CONTENTS] as I knew that this was the command I had to use, but I was unable to get the desired result. Now I finally understand the mechanic perfectly. In fact, thinking back, I remember doing almost what you did, except I used "<AND>  <NOT>" instead of just <NOT> for the [CONTENTS] tabs.

 

Anyway, both of the tabs using [CONTENTS] did indeed show differences. I'll list them here for good measure:

 

The ‎[CONTENTS BHS1]‎<NOT>‎[CONTENTS West1]‏ tab has the following verses with non-consecutive weqatal forms:

Josh 19:29; Ezek 17:21; Psa 68:10; Neh 7:2

 

The main issue with Josh 19:29 is that the reading of the verb היה is contested. BHS reads וְּו֧יָה and sees it as a non-consecutive weqatal. The Westminister edition reads וְיִהְיוּ and sees it as an imperfect form. The Westminister edition has the verb written again in brackets, too [וְ][הָי֧וּ], seeing it as a consecutive perfect.

 

In Ezek 17:21 the BHS reads the verb וִידַעְתֶּ֕ם as a non-consecutive weqatal whereas the Westminister edition does not.

 

In Psa 68:10 the BHS considers the verb וְנִלְאָ֗ה a nifal non-consecutive perfect, whereas the Westminister edition reads it as a nifal participle.

 

In Neh 7:2 the BHS considers וְיָרֵ֥א a non-consecutive perfect verb, whereas the Westminister edition reads it as an adjective.

 

The ‎[CONTENTS West1]‎<NOT>‎[CONTENTS BHS1] has the following verses with non-consecutive weqatal forms:

 

2 Sam 12:22; 14:30; Jer 43:11; Ezek 44:24

 

In 2 Sam 12:22 the reading of the verb הנן is contested. The Westminister edition reads an imperfect form יְחָנַּנִי while BHS reads a perfect form חַנַּ֥נִי. It also has the verb written again in brackets [וְ][חַנַּ֥נִי], seeing it as a non-consecutive perfect.

 

In 2 Sam 14:30, the Westminister edition reads a non-consecutive perfect form וְהוֹצִתִּיהָ while BHS reads an imperfect form וְהַוצִּת֣יּהָ.

 

In Jer 43:11 the Westminister edition reads the verb וּבָאָהּ as a non-consecutive weqatal whereas the BHS does not.

 

In Ezek 44:25, the Westminister edition reads the verb וְשָׁפְטֻהוּ as a non-consecutive weqatal, whereas the BHS reads it as an imperfect וִשְׁפְּטֻ֑הוּ.

 

The BHS tab has four unique non-consecutive weqatal forms but so does the Westminister tab, which confused me. Where were the additional seven non-consecutive forms in the Westminister edition? Then I figured that the bracketed forms in the Westminister edition is the main issue here - I then asked for the bracketed words to be ignored in the search, and saw that the Westminister edition got 1900 hits opposed to the BHS's amount of 1902, leaving out 2 Sam 12:22 from the search in the Westminister edition. When I asked for the bracketed forms to be exclusive to the search, I found the seven additional forms that mostly repeats the non-bracketed verb.

 

This is quite interesting stuff! As for why there are an excessive amount of non-consecutive weqatal forms in both text editions, the answer has yet to be revealed.

 

With kind regards

 

Peter


Accordance Version: 11.0.4 

Hardware: MacBook Pro 2.6 GHz Intel Core i7 (medio 2012)
Operating System: OSX 10.9.5 Mavericks.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users