Searching for lack of S-V gender concord

[Susan]

I'm attempting to construct a search to identify instances where a (simple) subject precedes its verb and they disagree in gender. This has been fun, and I have a search that seems to come pretty close -- screenshot below. (I tossed out interrogative pronouns and proper nouns because they were popping up as "disagreeing" with m/f verbs due to being untagged for gender. I tossed out כל but not all construct forms just because.) This finds 71 hits.

 

At the moment I see two problems:

 

1. I'm occasionally identifying pairs where S-V do not "go together" despite my (attempt at) limitation that they be within the same clause. For example, in 1 Sam 21:6(5) it finds אשה and יהיו. I think that אשה is the subject of עצרה (or, rather, the subject of a null copula -- fine) and ...כלי is the subject of יהיו, with no disagreement, but because (if I'm reading the diagram correctly) the first clause (...אם) is dependent on the second, they are within the same larger clause. To eliminate this from the search results, I suppose I need to either limit the search to subject/verb pairs at the same “depth” (I thought I had...) or find another way to identify S-V correspondence.

 

(Cf. 2 Kings 25:8 where it's finding היא (from a "parenthesis") and בא (outside).)

 

2. The other main group of hits I think need to be excluded include nouns that seem to me to be objects rather than subjects. I'm not sure if some of these may be mistakes in the syntax database or if there's a way to avoid them in the search. Or maybe I'm wrong and they are being appropriately identified as instances of S-V disagreement. For example: Ex 30:37 (הקטרת), Lev 11:5 (פרסה), Lev 11:7 (גרה), Ezk 23:49 (...הטאי), Ps 78:23 (...דלתי), Ps 107:38 (בהמתם), Job 14:19 (...תקות).  

 

And of course I don't know if this search is constructed in a way that misses a relevant group. Any feedback is appreciated.

 

Edited November 21, 2015 by Susan

[Robert Holmstedt]

Susan,

 

Beautiful -- there was an insidious (very hard to find) bracketing error in 1 Sam 26.1 that I have now fixed. Also, there were simply mis-tags in Exod 30:3, Lev 11:7 Ezek 23:49 Ps 107.38, and Job 14:19, all also now fixed. 

 

In Lev 11:5, פרסה is the subject of יפריס (and a monovalent Hifi), in my opinion. In Ps 78.23, the Qal פתח suggest that דלתים is the subject, not God. edit -- whoa! did I write that? Another tagging error now fixed.

 

Here is my version of your search, which I found to be pretty accurate, excluding the mistakes listed above (now all fixed).

 

Thanks!

 

Edited November 21, 2015 by Robert Holmstedt

[Susan]

Thanks, Dr. Holmstedt. I didn’t intend that post as an error-finding expedition (honest!) but I suppose that’s partly the nature of the search. I didn’t realize there was anything wrong with the tagging in 1 Sam 21:6, though. I’m still not sure I understand why, but I’ll take a look after the next update.

 

Are you eliminating pronouns from your search because you know that they don’t behave in this way, or is there another reason? I included them but was surprised that it returned almost none.  The one I did find was Lam 1:4 which may be mislabeled -- והיא מר לה -- as tagged, היא is the (discordant) subject of מר, but maybe instead a casus pendens pronoun with an impersonal verb and a resumptive pronoun as object of the preposition? (Speaking of which.... last one, really! .... Ezek 33:12 is also coming up: ורשעת הרשע לא יכשל בה –– this I was also thinking of as casus pendens with a resumptive pronoun on ב. It’s tagged with ...רשעת as the (discordant) subject of יכשל.)

 

Anyway, this search would have been much messier without being able to limit by clause, so thanks for all of your work on this. The remaining limitations I see to this search, which I throw out there in case anyone has any thoughts, but please don't feel obligated to respond. 

 

1. It's too bad the morphology tagging doesn't include gender for proper nouns. I imagine I'm missing some (perhaps many) relevant ones that way. I don't think that's a problem the syntax database can solve.  

 

2. Participles. I realize they are not finite verbs, but I suspect the have the same sort of gender lapses. This is going to be a different search. The one below only returns 22 hits which are easy enough to sort through (I suspect I'm missing some), but for my learning -- is there a good way to include those where the participle is a complement because it's (like?) a predicate adjective and therefore "should" agree with the subject but exclude those that are complements because they are substantives functioning as verbal objects (e.g. Ps 21:9)?

 

3. Probably the biggest group I'm missing is those (both finite verbs and participles) with a null subject which is nevertheless obvious in context. Many of these are identified in the syntax files with numbers pointing to their referent ("antecedent"?). Is there a way to harness these links in the search function?

 

Apologies for my shaky syntax terminology (which is overly influenced by Greek grammar). In addition to facilitating spiffy searches, these diagrams are a great learning tool.

 

[Robert Holmstedt]

I've been wanting folks to use the database like this for quite some time. Asking questions and doing searches together is precisely how I can continue to find tagging errors, at least until a year from now when I start going through the entire database line by line to proof again.

 

To answer your questions -- 

I had no reason to exclude pronouns; I simply thought you were interested in nouns. 

 

Lam 1:4 -- that is my mistake and I've fixed it. It is a left-dislocation structure, with a null subject for "the event/experience" of the context. Ezek 33:12 is another error and should be a dislocation structure.

 

On proper nouns and gender -- I agree, but that's neither our syntax or Accordance, but the Westminster text. 

 

On the null subjects with antecedents that would fit your search -- since we don't track participant reference, it's not possible in our database. It's an interesting question, but wow - would trying to add that layer that add a lot of complexity!

 

I'll work on your participle search and address it in another response later. 

[Robert Holmstedt]

Ok, I worked up a search for the participle and lack of gender agreement. It is attached below as a workspace -- you should be able to download and open it directly into your Accordance. Actually, it won't let me upload it, so a screenshot will have to do. 

 

The problem is that most of the subjects are compounds (you could specify simple to see if there any hits -- I just did and there are none). There is no way in the morph tagging for Accordance to resolve the number, person, or gender features of a compound subject (i.e., a masculine singular noun and a feminine singular noun will resolve in Hebrew to a masculine plural feature set for agreement purposes). So you must resort to manually checking the results. 

 

[Michel Gilbert]

Hi Robert,

 

At the moment I'm just dabbling with the database. Rest assured though, that I will be asking many questions in the years to come. I will also send you personal messages about thesis topics for your students (I have one in mind already). I'm just waiting for my schedule to clear, which will probably coincide with the remaining books appearing. I also want to do more reading, and I'm waiting for the revised Guide/Manual.

 

Regarding errors, I have some experience tagging (Exodus for Sailhamer), and in this type of work errors are inevitable. You should write a paper comparing scribal errors in antiquity to the types of errors you will find in your proof-reading.

 

By the way, my life would have taken quite a different turn if I pursued Hebrew syntax for my M.A. thesis and doctorate. Since I didn't, I'm relying on your work. That is why I'm so enthused about it.

 

Regards,

 

Michel

Edited November 23, 2015 by Michel Gilbert

[Susan]

Thanks for the participle search! I will go through them. 

 

Since you asked .... there’s some low-hanging fruit, searching for constructions that don’t make sense or only make sense in a limited number of circumstances. I find this to be an educational exercise, so I searched for clauses with an explicit subject and a  second person verb. (A couple of these had come up in the prior search and made me suspect there were more.) It’s easy to scan through and toss off the (correctly tagged) vocatives. For the simple subjects, here are the ones I suspect may be incorrectly tagged; corrections welcome.

 

Deut 23:10 - Syntax isn’t clear to me, but I don't think מחנה is the subject. DCH calls it predicative ("(as) army"). 

 

Josh 14:12 - ערימ is labeled as subject but I'm not sure of what. Seems to me it's either an adjunct within the prior clause or part of a compound subject there. It was coming up for me in the search as the subject of (or at least in the same clause as) שמעת, although it's a level below that.

 

Judg 18:25 - קול is the object/complement of the second person verb.

 

1 Sam 20:14 - י׳ is labelled as the subject; looks like it belongs within the complement as the nomen rectum of חסד. Also (not part of the search results, just noticed),  חי looks to me like a predicative adjective complement, with the 1cs pronoun as subject. 

 

1 King 2:6 - שיבה appears to be the object/complement rather than the subject of the (hifil) verb.

 

Ps 141:8 - נפשי is complement rather than subject.

 

Job 15:5b - לשון is complement (in construct with ערומים) rather than subject.

 

Job 42:2 - מזמה is showing up in the same clause as תוכלֹ. I'm not sure exactly what's going on there, but there appear to be two independent clauses within that כי complement, and I guessed that's not marked.

 

Prov 14:7b - שפתי is tagged as subject; should be complement (+ adjunct דעת ); null 2ms subject.

 

Do you want this sort of thing here or would you prefer it reported in the usual Accordance correction report email? My trouble is that I’m rarely if ever certain about these, (unlike spelling errors in the Jouon Muraoka paradigms (which are still rampant -- I await the next update)), so I hesitate to report them as “errors”, and it’s nice to get feedback here.

Edited November 23, 2015 by Susan

[Robert Holmstedt]

It's fine by me to use this forum for these issues. I will check these and report back.

Michel, I will try to address the manual after I breathe a bit post-SBL.

[Michel Gilbert]

Hi Robert,

 

I know I've mentioned the Manual a few times, but not to pressure you. I was just listing it again as one of the things I need to read before I really get into the database.

 

And, when I mentioned thesis topics, of course they will be suggestions, and at least another chance for you to interact with users of the database.

 

Regards,

 

Michel

[rwrobinson88]

I don't know Hebrew like y'all. But, please keep doing this because it helps me with syntax searching and understanding how to do that!

[Robert Holmstedt]

Deut 23:10 - fixed

 

Josh 14:12 - ערימ is the subject of a null copula clause; the complement is the complex גדולות בצורות (the second is in apposition to the first), but it was still tagged poorly and I fixed it.

 

Judg 18:25 - fixed

 

1 Sam 20:14 - the was a troubled verse (and probably has textual issues), but it is now fixed as best I can make sense of it

 

1 King 2:6 - fixed

 

Ps 141:8 - fixed

 

Job 15:5b -fixed.

 

Job 42:2 - pesky bracket - fixed

 

 

Prov 14:7b - fixed

 

Thank you!

Edited November 24, 2015 by Robert Holmstedt

[Ken Simpson]

Ok, I worked up a search for the participle and lack of gender agreement. It is attached below as a workspace -- you should be able to download and open it directly into your Accordance. Actually, it won't let me upload it, so a screenshot will have to do. 

 

The problem is that most of the subjects are compounds (you could specify simple to see if there any hits -- I just did and there are none). There is no way in the morph tagging for Accordance to resolve the number, person, or gender features of a compound subject (i.e., a masculine singular noun and a feminine singular noun will resolve in Hebrew to a masculine plural feature set for agreement purposes). So you must resort to manually checking the results. 

 

http://www.accordancebible.com/forums/public/style_images/master/attachicon.gifScreen Shot 2015-11-23 at 11.15.33 AM.png

 

Robert, if you zip the workspace first, you can upload it to the forums. Zip is an allowed filetype.

[Robert Holmstedt]

Thanks, Ken. That's good to know. Now, I hope I remember this ...