56 replies to this topic

[Julia Falling]

Yeah.  I figure whatever comes of this, what those of you who know this stuff decide will be of benefit to those of us who have only scratched the surface.

[Robert Holmstedt]

Ken, 

 

Neither John nor I advocate a departure from the WLC tags, just a surface level name change for the Accordance interface. We're both too familiar with tagged database to suggest any significant change to the WLC tagging (which I'm sure they wouldn't want, anyway).

 

With that said, they've accepted dozens of my submitted corrections. I believe my name is somewhere in the notes to the last release they produced. :-) And I have a couple dozen more I'll submit at the end of this year. 

[Brian K. Mitchell]

 the ones I cave come across are not for the binyanim but for the aspect (which would normally be dubbed perfect, imperfect, waw-consecutive, infinitive construct, infinitive absolute, imperative, etc etc).

 

I don’t like Seow’s grammar personally, but I do like the descriptive terms he uses.

I see what you mean, now. I do think those terms are become more popular in articles, grammars, and some commentaries.

 

Yeah, as a teaching grammar Seow is pedagogically weak (in my opinion), but I think it can be a nice reference tool.

[Ken Simpson]

Ken, 

 

Neither John nor I advocate a departure from the WLC tags, just a surface level name change for the Accordance interface. We're both too familiar with tagged database to suggest any significant change to the WLC tagging (which I'm sure they wouldn't want, anyway).

 

With that said, they've accepted dozens of my submitted corrections. I believe my name is somewhere in the notes to the last release they produced. :-) And I have a couple dozen more I'll submit at the end of this year. 

 

Thanks Prof Holmstedt, just making sure    

[Brian K. Mitchell]

 

 Let’s return to the more edifying area of Hebrew grammatical taxonomy! (BTW - completely mea culpa)

Amen!

Edited by bkMitchell, 13 October 2014 - 07:20 AM.

[Enoch]

What I would like to see used is the simple Letter-Number System, like G10, G11, G12, etc.; N10, N11, N12, etc.;

D10, D11, D12, etc.

 

G = qal (mnemonic "ground form")

N = nifal

D = piel (mnemonic doubling dot)

 

Was this invented by William LaSor?  

I could not find a chart laying it out by google -- if anyone knows a link to it, I would be thankful for posting it.

 

It can be seen used in Google books on a page which is  designated p. 46 in the Google system, but 47a in the book as "photographed," "Verb Diagnosis Chart" in Willam LaSor: Handbook of Biblical Hebrew

 

http://books.google....Sor g10&f=false

Edited by Enoch, 13 October 2014 - 10:04 AM.

[Michel Gilbert]

Hi Enoch,

 

If I recall, Gleason Archer told his 1986 Aramaic class at TEDS that he invented this alpha-numeric parsing system. Since LaSor's Handbook came out in 78/79, he probably learned it from Archer when their times overlapped at Fuller Theological Seminary. I'm open to correction though.

 

For the layout, see the attached file.

 

[Edit: Sorry about the misaligned vowel points and cells in the original pdf file; I replaced it with a screenshot.]

 

2nd Edit: I found and attached LaSor's Table of Indicators, Handbook:2, p. 90.]

 

One advantage of adopting it in Accordance would be to combine the neutral terms qatal, yiqtol, etc. with the rest of the parsing information - e.g., qatal G12, or yiqtol Dp 22. So I would also like to see it.

 

However, even though it would be relatively easy for Accordance to program this, I doubt that there would be much interest in it. I doubt that many have even heard of it.

 

If I had to choose between Accordance offering qatal, yiqtol, etc. and the alpha-numeric parsing system as options, I would choose the former.

 

Regards,

 

Michel

Attached Files

•  Alpha-Numeric Parsing, screenshot.pdf   64.48KB   10 downloads
•  LaSor, Table of Indicators.pdf   136.89KB   5 downloads

Edited by Michel Gilbert, 13 October 2014 - 04:25 PM.

[Peter Brylov Christensen]

What I would like to see used is the simple Letter-Number System, like G10, G11, G12, etc.; N10, N11, N12, etc.;

D10, D11, D12, etc.

 

G = qal (mnemonic "ground form")

N = nifal

D = piel (mnemonic doubling dot)

 

Was this invented by William LaSor?  

I could not find a chart laying it out by google -- if anyone knows a link to it, I would be thankful for posting it.

 

It can be seen used in Google books on a page which is  designated p. 46 in the Google system, but 47a in the book as "photographed," "Verb Diagnosis Chart" in Willam LaSor: Handbook of Biblical Hebrew

 

http://books.google....Sor g10&f=false

 

 

Intriguing - I've never seen anyone use that stem system for Hebrew before. I usually associate it with Akkadian and Ugaritic - maybe Archer used the system in order to match the terminology used in comparative semitic linguistics?

 

Actually, that gives me an idea. Other than an alternative to the aspects (perfect/imperfect versus qatal/yiqtol etc.) in Preferences, it would be great if it were possible to select an alternative to the current stem system (qal, nifal etc.) as well so that:

 

Qal becomes G-stem (Grundstamm)

Nifal becomes N-stem

Piel becomes D-stem (Doppelungsstamm)

Hifil becomes H-stem (Equals Akkadian causative Š-stem)

Qal passive becomes Gp-stem

 

..and so on.

 

With kind regards

 

Pchris

[Robert Holmstedt]

I would support using the basic abbreviations G, N, D, H, etc. for the binyanim. But the numerical codes (10, 11, etc.) are, as far as I know, from the CCATS electronic text that preceded the current morphological databases. I would never recommend them for students learning the language, since they remove one to a level of abstraction that obscures the function of the forms (i.e, G10) for Qal 3ms qatal verb. 

[John Cook]

Here I will demur with Robert, for the simple reason that the alphabetic abbreviations G, N, D, H, etc. will never reach the level of differentiation currently in the Accordance search engine, and will be practically impossible to apply (take a look at the pull down menu to see the wide variation of binyanim listed both for Hebrew and Aramaic). So while nice in theory, I can't see it begin usefully applied to the database.

[Michel Gilbert]

 

 

Intriguing - I've never seen anyone use that stem system for Hebrew before. I usually associate it with Akkadian and Ugaritic - maybe Archer used the system in order to match the terminology used in comparative semitic linguistics?

 

 

Dr. Archer told us he knew about 24 languages. His memorial at http://www.etsjets.o...13-220_JETS.pdf says he knew about 30 before he passed away, and that he taught NT Greek, biblical Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, Akkadian, Egyptian, and Syriac.

 

Now that you mention it, he did introduce the system in the context of the semitic languages.  

 

 

Regards

Edited by Michel Gilbert, 13 October 2014 - 02:54 PM.

[Enoch]

Hi Enoch,

 

If I recall, Gleason Archer told his 1986 Aramaic class at TEDS that he invented this alpha-numeric parsing system. Since LaSor's Handbook came out in 78/79, he probably learned it from Archer when their times overlapped at Fuller Theological Seminary. I'm open to correction though.

 

For the layout, see the attached file.

 

[Edit: Sorry about the misaligned vowel points and cells in the original pdf file; I replaced it with a screenshot.]

 

One advantage of adopting it in Accordance would be to combine the neutral terms qatal, yiqtol, etc. with the rest of the parsing information - e.g., qatal G12, or yiqtol Dp 22. So I would also like to see it.

 

However, even though it would be relatively easy for Accordance to program this, I doubt that there would be much interest in it. I doubt that many have even heard of it.

 

If I had to choose between Accordance offering qatal, yiqtol, etc. and the alpha-numeric parsing system as options, I would choose the former.

 

Regards,

 

Michel

Thanks.  I learned of this system from Kenneth Barker at TEDS long before 1986  -- Archer was there, but I never took a course from him.  Barker I ranks as one the all time best profs I ever had.  I don't recall him saying Archer invented it, but I might have missed it.  Barker was a Dropsie student at the time.

 

BTW, I think everyone is neglecting the contribution towards Bible Code that these alpha-numerics could make.  Secret messages could be deciphered. 

Edited by Enoch, 13 October 2014 - 03:20 PM.

[Robert Holmstedt]

Here I will demur with Robert, for the simple reason that the alphabetic abbreviations G, N, D, H, etc. will never reach the level of differentiation currently in the Accordance search engine, and will be practically impossible to apply (take a look at the pull down menu to see the wide variation of binyanim listed both for Hebrew and Aramaic). So while nice in theory, I can't see it begin usefully applied to the database.

You're right, John -- I didn't think about all the others listed in the Accordance menu until after I had posted. But what's Aramaic, anyway? 

[Michel Gilbert]

Hi,

 

When I mentioned the stems in my screenshot, "G, N, D, Dp, H, Hp, HtD (there are others)," I knew that it would be difficult to abbreviate most of the others, and that would be a deal breaker.

 

So, even though I would like it, I'm not advocating for the system. I'd much rather have the qatal, yiqtol option.

 

By the way Robert, would you advocate qetol for impv, and qotel/qatul for the ptc?

[Peter Brylov Christensen]

Hi,

 

When I mentioned the stems in my screenshot, "G, N, D, Dp, H, Hp, HtD (there are others)," I knew that it would be difficult to abbreviate most of the others, and that would be a deal breaker.

 

So, even though I would like it, I'm not advocating for the system. I'd much rather have the qatal, yiqtol option.

 

By the way Robert, would you advocate qetol for impv, and qotel/qatul for the ptc?

 

I tried to give it a go anyway. Some of the forms I'm not sure of, so feel free to correct me:

 

Qal—> G

Passive Qal —> Gp (G passive)

Nifal—> N

Piel—> D

Pual—> Dp 

Hitpael —> tD

Hotpaal—> tDp (Passive hitpael)

Hifil—> H (Akkadian Š-stem)

Hištafel —> Št-stem

Hofal —> Hp (Hifil passive)

Poel —> LD (Biconsonantal verbal stem with lengthened second radical - factitive)

Poal —> LDp (Biconsonantal verbal stem with lengthened second radical - passive factitive)

Hitpoel—> LtD (Biconsonantal verbal stem with lengthened second radical - factitive reflexive)

Polel —> Hollow LD verbal stem

 

Pilel  —> ? (Accordance states that there are three forms of this verb in the BHS: Ezek 28,23; Psa 88,17; Job 26,9. HALOT lists the form in Ex 28,23 as a Pilpel. The form in Psa 88,17 is listed as a piel. The form in Job 26,9 is listed as a mixed form of two verbs.)

 

Palel —> ? (Accordance states that there are seven forms of this verb in the BHS: Gen 21,16; Jer 30,10; 46,27; 48,11; Job 3,18; 15,32; Prov 1,33. HALOT lists nearly every form attested   as a Pilpel except from: Gen 21,16, where מְטַחֲוֵי is listed as a Pilel and רַעֲנָנָה in Jb 15,32 listed as a Palal.)

 

Polal—>  Hollow LDp verbal stem

Pulal—> ?

Hitpolel—> Hollow LtD verbal stem

Pilpel—> R (Reduplicated verbal stem)

Polpal—> Rp

Hitpalpel—> RtD

Hpealal —> ? (Not entirely sure what to do with these.)

Nitpael—> ? (Not sure what to do with these. HALOT states that the forms corrupted, so do they even count?)

Nitpalpel—> N/A in BHS

Nitpoel—>  N/A in BHS

Tifil —> ? (HALOT states that the form is not certain, seeing that it only occurs once in the entire BHS.)

*EDIT*

All in all, after trying to do this, I acknowledge Dr. Cook's point. It is very complicated to implement this system with the contested forms and it is perhaps not as versatile as the current system - although I guess that the current system isn't always that simple to work with either due to the fact that several of the forms are contested even as it is.

Edited by Pchris, 13 October 2014 - 05:40 PM.

[Ken Simpson]

I know this is a wonderful place for us to talk about further elaborations of the Hebrew tagging system, but given the Groves database is our substrate, that’s not going to happen IMHO.

 

We could possibly see an alternative system for aspect in the first three options (as discussed above) and this thread really was meant to gauge interest in that particular change.

Thanks for all the other contributions, and it’s time to keep asking - who would like to see

 

qatal

yiqtol

wayyiqtol

 

as an alternative part of the system.

[Michel Gilbert]

Hi Ken,

 

I think Dr. Cook, Pchris, and I are in agreement with Dr. Holmstedt, and we are not "advocating a departure from the WLC tags, just a surface level name change."

 

If the discussion is about preferring neutral, scholarly terms for the ones in the drop down menu for Verb > Aspect, then I think it is an appropriate context to ask about the other terms on the menu, specifically the participle, which some believe is simply a conjugated adjective.

 

As Helen said, it would be programmed as an option. The underlying tags would remain the same.

 

Thanks for starting this thread.

 

Regards,

 

Michel

Edited by Michel Gilbert, 13 October 2014 - 06:34 PM.

[Ken Simpson]

Hi Michel, my last post in no way was meant to be critical, just a refocus. 

[Daniel Saunders]

+1 for the 'alternative' naming system. Thanks for raising this Ken.

[Ken Simpson]

As my Semitics Sage said to me this morning, in his opinion:

 

"That would be a huge step forward!"

 

Edited by Ken Simpson, 13 October 2014 - 06:53 PM.