The morphological categories are something I would strongly endorse. They are about the only "semantically neutral" (or close to it) option. For instance, I do not think that there even is such as a thing as the "was-consecutive" perfect. It's just a perfect, but used with modal/irrealis semantics.
But "cohortative," as I suspect it is intended, is not a morph category and it is not reflected morphologically all the time (that is, not all 1cs jussives use the cohortative -ah). Anyway, it's already available in the "other" drop-down menu under the verb (see below).
Screenshot 2014-10-12 10.58.06.png
So, this is what I would like to see in Accordance, since I think it would make the verbal categories neutral (i.e., less tied to any one theory) and thus more scholarly:
Love this Prof Holmstedt. This would be my preferred system if it was available. With the caveat below.
I would like to add my support to Robert Holmstedt's comments. As someone who has published a while on the verbal system, the infinitives, participles, and imperative forms are very little disputed. By contrast, the morphological labels (qatal, yiqtol, and wayyiqtol) are widely employed in debates about the verbal system because of their neutrality.
Also in line with Robert's comments, the case of the so-called cohortative and weqatal are a more complicated matters. The current means of searching for these forms correctly represents the morphological ambiguity of these forms: as also with the jussive, these forms cannot be reliably distinguished morphologically in a good number of cases (e.g., from the yiqtol and waw-prefixed qatal), so we should not mislead Accordance users to assume they are entirely distinct forms in the system. In any case, I do not believe the underlying morphological tags would even allow distinguishing weqatal (by which I mean Irrealis use of qatal) from waw + qatal.
The verbal system is a complex issue I know, and I am not trying to minimise that complexity in what I am about to say I hope. One issue I think I see with your thoughts John is that our morphological system is not ours to play around with in some ways. I am not an insider on this but as far as I am aware the morphological system we use is the Westminster-Groves database from the Groves institute. All the parsing information (including the aspect) is what they assign to the text. So, if what we are suggesting is simply a display name change (i.e. imperfect for yiqtol, perfect for qatal etc,) then that is a simple (IMHO anyway) programming change. If it is actually reclassifying words in the Hebrew database, that would be a much larger undertaking and may well be beyond our remit at Oaktree (I am not speaking as an employee here, just thinking out loud).
I have had dealings with W-G in the past where they were dismissive of a reasonable suggestion I had about the pointing of a word in Ruth in HMT text as c/w what I (and my Heb teacher) considered was the actual pointing of the word in the WLC, so I suspect getting any wholesale change done there would not be a simple thing. (By dismissive, I don’t mean they simply disagreed, which is their prerogative of course, but there was seemingly no real engagement with our suggestion at all.)
All these are musings rather than speaking from any real knowledge of how the underlying Accordance engine accesses the underlying database information in the HMT text so please take it with some (considerable) grains of salt.
Edited by Ken Simpson, 12 October 2014 - 03:52 PM.