Jump to content

syntactical databases


mbcvida

Recommended Posts

I was curious as to Accordance' future plans for implementing syntactical databases? Are there any current ones that could be licensed for Accordance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are currently no syntactical databases available for Accordance. However, we are working on this issue, just want to get it right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dick,

 

what would you expect to find in a syntactical database? Maybe syntax within a sentence, like what the subject is, etc? Or do you rather think or larger units?

 

I have been thinking about this lately, and I wonder what would be more useful for Bible studies.

 

Marco

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 10 months later...

I would be interested in such a module. I think that the Accordance developers could come up with a great way (i.e. in a user-friendly and useful way) to display the information contained in the OpenText.org site.

 

In my thinking, Accordance's 'graphical' original language search interface would be an ideal way to set up the syntactical searches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dick,

 

what would you expect to find in a syntactical database? Maybe syntax within a sentence, like what the subject is, etc? Or do you rather think or larger units?

 

I have been thinking about this lately, and I wonder what would be more useful for Bible studies.

 

Marco

 

Like Marco, I also question the usefulness of such a module. If it is limited to identifying how parts of speech are being used within a sentence (i.e., identifying that a given word is functioning as the subject, predicate, main verb, dependent clause, etc), then there could be a use for that.

 

However, if the intention is to go beyond this to identify syntactical uses of particular parts of speech (e.g., syntactical use of an aorist participle or genitive noun), then the module would be far too interpretive to provide any real help to the serious interpreter. After all, it is the job of the interpreter to identify these very kind of syntactical uses. A survey of translations and commentators reveals that there are very different interpretations of how certain parts of speech are functioning syntactically within a sentence.

 

So, like Marco asked, "what would you expect"? What would such a database look like?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I was thinking of would be very 'simple', but not necessarily just limited to identifying how the parts of speech are being used in a sentence. (i.e. I am NOT looking for a chart that tells me that this word is the subject, and this is the verb and this is the object etc...) What I envision would be access to the kind of information which would allow more precision when doing searches; for a simplistic example: we could search for a specific noun which is the subject of a specific verb, and find out what this particular syntactical relationship takes as it's object(s).

 

Clear as mud, yes? :huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you can basically do that already. Simply do a Construct search for a particular noun in the nominative case (for greek) in the first column and the verb of your choosing (probably specifying indicative mood) in the second column have them occur within 10 or so words of each other, click the 'search both directions' box, click search. In your results window, narrow the search by 'clause'. that way you don't get hits where the words are clearly not grammatically tied together.

 

Just perform this search and read through the hits to see what kinds of objects the verb takes. Without having to translate everything it would not be too hard to identify whether or not it takes a direct object in the accusative or dative. Of course this takes a bit of reading/skimming.

 

Unless this is not what you are referring to.

 

Or are you thinking that such a database would remove the "reading/skimming" step I listed above?

 

Also, for this particular example, the standard lexicons already, to a significant degree, do that job. BDAG often includes what case a particular verb takes as its object (along with other grammatical, statistical, or etymological data). BDB will often tell you if a particular verb takes a particular preposition as its direct object marker (e.g., sometimes lamed [similar to aramaic] and beth are markers of the direct object for certain verbs)

 

Does this get close to what you are thinking of? Or, based on what I've written, can you (all) clarify a little more what you're thinking?

 

(note bene: this post reflects a development in my thoughts from beginning to end, i.e., I was "speaking my thoughts out loud")

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are working towards providing syntactical information for the Greek and Hebrew texts that will be easy to both view and search. This is a massive project which will take some time to complete. Certainly the interpretation of the finer details will be more subjective than the broader classifications, but we aim to provide a system which will be understandable and useful to many users.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may say that when I posted my earlier comment 10 months ago, I was not questioning whether some kind of syntactical tagging could be useful at all, but rather how it could best accomplished.

I was fully aware that some subjective judgment would be involved, but that wasn't driving me away.

 

Let us say that the grammatical tagging is often considered as more objective, as opposed to the more subjective syntactical tagging. But then, it was apparent to me that in some cases the grammatical tagging depends on the interpreter's view on the syntax.

 

This is because the grammatical tagging requires the person who prepares the tags to make some decisions. This happens as in Greek (this applies, of course, also to other languages) there are different forms that are homographs.

 

The easiest example are neutral articles or pronouns. It is impossible to say whether they are accusative or nominative without looking at the context. And the context which is relevant is the syntactical context.

 

I can see two ways of solving this problem.

 

One would be to indicate all the possible cases that can be represented by a given inflected form. This would lead to a database that indicates nominative, accusative or even vocative as possible cases of a given inflected form. This is not the way GNT-T, or LXX or VULG-T are tagged.

 

The second way is to make choices. This requires an interpreter who makes choices, and the choices are based on the syntactical context. In some cases at least, the choice is so hard, that it is best to indicate alternate parsings. This does not mean that it would be better to give alternate parsings for every several occurrence of the Greek neuter article TO or TA. This is the way that actual Accordance modules as GNT-T, LXX or VULG-T were prepared.

 

If so, I thought that it would be extremely interesting to try to prepare a syntax module, and to do that in such a way that would reduce alternate interpretations to a minimum. This is where I was when I wrote ten months ago.

 

I see that now interest for the issue is rekindled, and I anticipate an interesting discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you can basically do that already. Simply do a Construct search for a particular noun in the nominative case (for greek) in the first column and the verb of your choosing (probably specifying indicative mood) in the second column have them occur within 10 or so words of each other, click the 'search both directions' box, click search. In your results window, narrow the search by 'clause'. that way you don't get hits where the words are clearly not grammatically tied together.

 

(snip)

 

Rob:

 

you are right, this is a good way to do something that gets close. If you don't mind, I would consider the same issue within my previous line of thought, that tended to draw attention to the elements that should be included in a module that tags syntax.

 

You suggested to narrow the search by clause, so as not to get hits where the words are not grammatically connected. Now, my question is: how is a clause determined? That would influence greatly the result of your search. How does the search engine know about clause boundaries?

 

As I see it, it could know in two ways. The first way would be an automated way: that would mean using some marker that is already in the text as a clause boundary. What could these markers be? I suggest that they consist of punctuation: commas, semicolons, etc. This would make sense: fullstops would be separators for sentences, and commas or similar would be separators for clauses.

 

However, this would hardly be a reliable tool to make sure that the words in your search are, or are not, grammatically connected. A clause could easily include a comma, and so extend further than the comma. Or a sentence could not include any punctuation mark, and so there would be no way for the search engine to divide it into clauses.

 

If we are not to give up and renounce the benefits of a search restricted to clauses, then we will need a module that includes tags that mark the beginning and the end of clauses. This can be tricky, as there clauses included within longer clauses, and even clauses that split into parts that are not necessarily contiguous.

 

This would require the tagger to make decisions on every several sentence of the text. Decisions of this kind are based on syntax, not on morphology alone. Of course, many of these decisions could be challenged and discussed. However, as long as the system is consistent, the result would greatly improve the significance of a search like that described.

 

From this I would draw the conclusion that a desirable feature of a syntactical module would be that of systematically defining the boundaries of clauses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marco,

I'm sorry I misrepresented you in my previous post.

 

Your two posts, it seems to me, only accentuate my first point that a syntax database would require a lot of interpretive decisions (i.e., subjectivity). My suggestion for how "you can basically do that already", I grant you was limited (and your point about the clause search is perfectly valid especially with passages like Eph 1 where almost the whole chapter is one sentence where phrases in later verses are grammatically/syntactically tied to the 3rd, 4th or 5th [etc] verse prior).

 

My question is, due to the subjective nature of such a database, is it really worth having (and spending valuable Accordance developer time on)? Again, your comments about how the grammatical tagging is at times subjective makes me doubt even more the reliability of a syntax database. Am I off base here?

 

Now, I recognize that such a database could/should be perceived in a way similar to how a commentary is perceived: a resource filled with informed interpretations. Perhaps such a database should be called a commentary (for example, "New Testament Syntactical Commentary") rather than a database ("New Testament Syntactical Database"). I guess I wonder about how such a database will be used. Will it be used competently as an interpretive resource or used incompetently as an answer book for the lazy student or (dare I say) pastor?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marco,

I'm sorry I misrepresented you in my previous post.

 

(snip)

 

Rob:

 

there was nothing wrong with your comment.

 

Your question about how subjective a syntactical database is is a good one. I tried to show that also morphological databases involve subjective decisions on part of the developer. Apart from mistakes that can always creep in, but can also be corrected in later updates, there are some choices that could be made one way or the other. This is true of dictionaries, grammars, translations. It is also true of a syntactical database.

 

You also point to the reasonable answer: users should be aware that the syntactical database contains informed interpretation. The learner can use it as a guide to the study of syntax, just as if he had the help of a living teacher. And the scholar can use the database to gather quickly information that he considers relevant. Then he can disagree on any of the results. I hope that he would disagree in some of them, not in most of them. If so, the database would be useful even for him.

 

I think that this discussion has already brought out some characteristics that are desirable in a syntactical database: it should define the boundaries of clauses, it should indicate subject, predicates, and few other syntactical functions, it should be possible to make searches in both the main search window and the construct window.

 

What else am I missing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the scholar can use the database to gather quickly information that he considers relevant. Then he can disagree on any of the results. I hope that he would disagree in some of them, not in most of them. If so, the database would be useful even for him.

 

Marco,

I guess I wonder if it would be possible for even this to be so. For example: I think that Wallace's Exegetical Syntax is currently the closest thing to a syntactical database (though it doesn't do some or most of what you are talking about for the desired database). And Wallace notes a great number of places where the grammar is either ambiguous or more research still needs to be done or there is disagreement down theological lines (where both sides still think the other is wrong).

 

I think that this discussion has already brought out some characteristics that are desirable in a syntactical database: it should define the boundaries of clauses, it should indicate subject, predicates, and few other syntactical functions, it should be possible to make searches in both the main search window and the construct window.

 

What else am I missing?

 

It may also be useful for the database to include cross references to standard grammars like BDF and Wallace's Exegetical Syntax. In fact, these may be a good starting point in gathering syntactical constructions that have already been figured out and are accepted as normative.

 

What do you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rob:

 

I have gone through Wallace before answering. The good thing is that it is already available as a module within Accordance. As everything is connected with hyperlinks, you can easily move from GNT-T to Wallace and back. So, your idea proved a useful tip for me.

 

As for ambiguities: there are certainly many of them, but they are not so many as to make a syntactical database unreliable. Rather, a user should be aware that such a module implies choices, and that a certain amount of them can be challenged. In other words, results in a search can't be 100% exact. Even so, I find that a high percentage of choices that are reliable enough.

 

For instance, Wallace discusses how predicate nominatives can be distinguished from subject nominatives. The treatment is sound, and provides a good starting point for accurate tagging.

 

As for the research needs to be done: I tend to think that preparing or using a syntactical module may prove a good way to do that research.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

We are more interested in the ability to build our own databases and use them in Accordance. Rather than simply get licenses for existing syntactic databases (which would still be nice), we wish to make our own morphological (Westminster for BHS isn't perfect), syntactic, and semantic databases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, this is not part of our plans. I think that it would be extremely difficult, and create a host of support issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, this is not part of our plans. I think that it would be extremely difficult, and create a host of support issues.

 

 

Can you, or anyone, think of a Mac program that would do the job? As of now, we have to use a program in Windows XP to make our own syntactic database and lexicon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you, or anyone, think of a Mac program that would do the job? As of now, we have to use a program in Windows XP to make our own syntactic database and lexicon.

 

If you want to take your notes, Accordance offers a layout. You need to select a portion of text, and then click the "syntax" button in the amplify palette. You will be presented with a table, were everything is already compiled except the syntactical analysis. You can easily enter your own assessment of the syntax.

 

However, this is not a module, but rather the output of a grammatically tagged module, arranged so that you can add to the information already provided. I can't be searched within Accordance.

 

Putting together a database that can be searched with the Accordance powerful engine would require a group of scholars to agree first about a uniform understanding of syntax, and then also about a uniform format for collecting the information. This is way, I think it would be way too difficult to have everyone to choose his own rules.

 

What, then, if there were some important difference in the way syntax is understood and represented? I would say that having a module that reflects one way of understanding syntax would open the way to more modules that reflect a different understanding. It would be a problem similar to the problem of choosing which text should be chosen for a tagged module of say, the Hebrew Bible or the NT. Is it better to have a critical edition of the NT? Or the majority text? Or a single manuscript? Accordance started with the Greek New Testament, and then added the GNT by Wetscott-Hort, the GNT by Tischendorf, the Codex Vaticanus, the Codex Bezae and so on. Now we can choose according to our need. The was a time when we had nothing, then a time when we had only one text. Something similar might happen with syntax modules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Putting together a database that can be searched with the Accordance powerful engine would require a group of scholars to agree first about a uniform understanding of syntax, and then also about a uniform format for collecting the information. This is way, I think it would be way too difficult to have everyone to choose his own rules.

 

What, then, if there were some important difference in the way syntax is understood and represented? I would say that having a module that reflects one way of understanding syntax would open the way to more modules that reflect a different understanding. It would be a problem similar to the problem of choosing which text should be chosen for a tagged module of say, the Hebrew Bible or the NT. Is it better to have a critical edition of the NT? Or the majority text? Or a single manuscript? Accordance started with the Greek New Testament, and then added the GNT by Wetscott-Hort, the GNT by Tischendorf, the Codex Vaticanus, the Codex Bezae and so on. Now we can choose according to our need. The was a time when we had nothing, then a time when we had only one text. Something similar might happen with syntax modules.

 

Marco,

 

That's an interesting observation and prediction. From our conversation before I feel won over to supporting this kind of module. With this comment, I am more curious to see what the possibilities may be....

 

Off the top of my head, I can think a few possible directions: a reformed syntax module, a dispensational syntax module, an arminian syntax module, a calvinist syntax module, a feminist syntax module, a conservative module, a liberal module. (after writing that out, I begin to feel again my skepticism about this kind of module).

 

However, I think you are right in one or two of your other posts where you mention that there are many constructions that are objective and regular that can be documented in a syntax module that all can easily agree upon. For other constructions, I think various options would need to be included. What I mean is, when perusing the results of a particular search in the syntax module there should be notification of passages where the syntax is disputed (in other words, the search performed is merely one option for a given passage while there are people/traditions that see the syntax differently). And I think there should be some way of viewing those different options in situ: by opening a new pane or by hovering over a link and viewing it in the ID palette.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to take your notes, Accordance offers a layout. You need to select a portion of text, and then click the "syntax" button in the amplify palette. You will be presented with a table, were everything is already compiled except the syntactical analysis. You can easily enter your own assessment of the syntax.

 

However, this is not a module, but rather the output of a grammatically tagged module, arranged so that you can add to the information already provided. I can't be searched within Accordance.

 

Putting together a database that can be searched with the Accordance powerful engine would require a group of scholars to agree first about a uniform understanding of syntax, and then also about a uniform format for collecting the information. This is way, I think it would be way too difficult to have everyone to choose his own rules.

 

What, then, if there were some important difference in the way syntax is understood and represented? I would say that having a module that reflects one way of understanding syntax would open the way to more modules that reflect a different understanding. It would be a problem similar to the problem of choosing which text should be chosen for a tagged module of say, the Hebrew Bible or the NT. Is it better to have a critical edition of the NT? Or the majority text? Or a single manuscript? Accordance started with the Greek New Testament, and then added the GNT by Wetscott-Hort, the GNT by Tischendorf, the Codex Vaticanus, the Codex Bezae and so on. Now we can choose according to our need. The was a time when we had nothing, then a time when we had only one text. Something similar might happen with syntax modules.

 

So that's a no. We are well familiar with Accordance's features and the syntax feature does not do the job we're talking about. We completely disagree with the thought that scholars would have to agree on the syntax to make a database. We are interested in developing our own thoughts, not just using others.

 

Again, can anyone name a Mac program that will make language databases (and not just syntax)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So that's a no. We are well familiar with Accordance's features and the syntax feature does not do the job we're talking about. We completely disagree with the thought that scholars would have to agree on the syntax to make a database. We are interested in developing our own thoughts, not just using others.

 

Again, can anyone name a Mac program that will make language databases (and not just syntax)?

 

Daniel and Tonya,

 

I fully respect your disagreement. However, my statement was not an absolute one, and I didn't say that before anyone can do a database scholars have to agree first. That would be a long shot indeed! Id that were my thought, I would be at a difference with myself. I would myself feel that I don't want to wait, and would go ahead, just like you want to do.

 

As for my statement, I just said that for a database to be searchable, it must be consistent. So there is a need to set some rules that will be followed while preparing the database. If I, or you, want to do the job yourself, you will need that. Then, if the database is to be searched with an existing engine, you will have to agree about to use the mask of a specific software to enter you data. If you want a mask that is tailored to your need, you will have to compile the mask yourself, or to ask the developer to compile one for you.

 

It looks to me that the difference is that you prefer to go ahead and use any existing piece of software that allows to compile one's own database.

 

On my part, I would prefer to interact with the developers of Accordance, in order to make the most of the Accordance search engine and interface. When I choose this way, I am aware that I am starting a cooperative effort, and that I will have to negotiate and compromise.

One advantage of this is that I can concentrate on working on the Greek syntax, while others take care of writing and interface. Another advantage is that others can prepare more databases, and we can put them all together and build a library that consists of modules that are in the same format and can be used together within Accordance. The disadvantage is that I need to discuss with other people and agree on some understanding of what should be represented in a syntactical database and how.

 

I wish I could give you some advice on databases, by I never built databases on my own, apart from bibliographical databases, For these I used Papyrus on MacOS 9 and Bookends on MacOS X.

 

But you would need something more flexible. A colleague of mine built a database of his own with Syriac texts. He used a free app: mySQL. You can find it at macupdate.

 

I hope this helps. Then again, I respect and admire your willingness to go on and start this huge project.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marco,

 

That's an interesting observation and prediction. From our conversation before I feel won over to supporting this kind of module. With this comment, I am more curious to see what the possibilities may be....

 

Rob,

 

I am glad that our conversation is opening the way for new ideas. I will need to think and answer to you later.

 

Marco

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I have read on some blogs that Accordance was demoing the upcoming syntactical database for version 9. I wish I could have been there! Since I wasn't, is there any chance we could see a little screencast showing this off for the rest of us?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/2009/11/the-status-quo-has-lost-its-status/

 

This is a serious critique of the charge of subjectivity with regard to syntactical databases. I'm not quite sure what to think of it. I was wondering if you guys might want to weigh in.

 

Yes, we've been demoing syntactical databases at the SBL booth.

 

As for Michael Heiser's posting, I'd love to offer a response, but as of yet can't figure out how to leave one. Noticing that no one else has left a comment, it makes me wonder if something's not right with his blog or if he just doesn't want comments. But I'm still trying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...