Brian W. Davidson Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 When searching the LXX and displaying the MT-LXX data in analysis, the information isn't very helpful for verbs without the attached waws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Allison Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 Are you using the "Merge" command to link the search with the HMT or LXX (or both)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian W. Davidson Posted November 3, 2015 Author Share Posted November 3, 2015 (edited) No I'm talking about the way the data is displayed in an analysis report, one of he new features of 11.1. Edited November 3, 2015 by Brian W. Davidson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian W. Davidson Posted November 3, 2015 Author Share Posted November 3, 2015 example: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joel Brown Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 Brian, I'm really not sure what you are looking for here that we don't provide, though I recognize this could greatly be due to my ignorance! Taking your top example there, Gen 31:25 κατέλαβεν, according to the MT-LXX Parallel tool this translates ו/ישׂג to καὶ κατέλαβεν. The waw is associated with the kai, so what is not helpful about seeing the connection of κατέλαβεν to ישׂג? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian W. Davidson Posted November 3, 2015 Author Share Posted November 3, 2015 (edited) It is incorrect to say that the form κατελαβεν represents ישׂג. It is the wayyiqtol form, with the waw, that makes the tense what it is. This is a Hebrew thing, but it's a major problem with the display, rendering it basically useless for searching Greek verbs and displaying the Hebrew equivalents with the analysis report. Edited November 3, 2015 by Brian W. Davidson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian W. Davidson Posted November 3, 2015 Author Share Posted November 3, 2015 (edited) For this to be useful a search on καταλαμβανω would really need to display all the information in both columns of the MT-LXX tool. Grouping the individual hits by common form would be helpful, though. So I would expect something like this (the number of occurrences is made up here): καταλαμβάνω (κατά, λαμβάνω) to take, overtake, reach = 118 תדבק/ני καταλάβῃ με (5x) ו/ידבק καὶ κατέλαβεν (2x) etc. OR, simple lemma alignment καταλαμβάνω (κατά, λαμβάνω) to take, overtake, reach = 118 דבק number of times נשׂג number of times etc. The option for both or either would be great. Edited November 3, 2015 by Brian W. Davidson 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Helen Brown Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 Brian: What you are requesting is readily available if you do the MERGE search of your results in either text into the MT-LXX Parallel module. This new feature is only intended to give users a quick overview of how a word is translated. This is not available in the MT-LXX itself for a common word. There is a podcast on the MT-LXX, and explanation of the MERGE search in the Help, and I will be glad to demo it to you. Here is an example result for καταλαμβάνω, but more sophisticated searches are also possible. Even if we displayed the prefixes and suffixes, without parsing one does not know the exact aspect of the Hebrew verb. In the future we may be able to offer the lexeme in the Analytics as well as the inflected form, which is all the MT-LXX shows, but I think that for your kind of needs, you should use the Parallel tool itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian W. Davidson Posted November 3, 2015 Author Share Posted November 3, 2015 (edited) The one thing that isn't available with the merge command is a simple list of lemmas like you would find in hatch and redpath or Muraoka's two-way index. I'm familiar with Merge command searches and use them everyday, but if the analysis report could spit out a list of lemmas that would be a big step forward. That's the kind of simple overview that would be most useful, in my opinion. Edited November 3, 2015 by Brian W. Davidson 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian W. Davidson Posted November 3, 2015 Author Share Posted November 3, 2015 What I'm trying to say is if we are only going to see part of an inflected form, then why not just show the lexical forms? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Helen Brown Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 As I said, we may be able to add lexical forms sooner rather than later. According to both the Westminster Hebrew database, and the MT-LXX, the waw is not part of the inflected form. It is always defined as a separate particle/conjunction. In some cases the following verb is parsed as wawconsecutive, but not in all cases. I think the parsing is a judgment call, not easy to make in every case, but the prefix separation is added in every case. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian W. Davidson Posted November 3, 2015 Author Share Posted November 3, 2015 Thanks for the prospect of adding lexical forms soon! I would prefer an option to see them and nothing else, no inflected forms. For that I can keep using his the parallel. Displaying lexical forms would in a 1:1 way replace the print resources. Having the number of occurrences of each lexical form would be fantastic because I could hit command + ' and immediately see, with one glance, the usual translation of a word as I read and compare MT and LXX texts. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abram K-J Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 Especially given the unlikelihood of seeing Muraoka's Two-Way Index licensed and produced in Bible software any time soon (unless this has changed?), I think showing lexical forms is a great idea, and would be a nice advance for LXX Studies in Accordance. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now