Why this difference between NA28 and NA28 (sigla)

[mortenjensen]

Hi all

I have encountered a curious difference between NA28 Greek NT and the NA28 Greek NT (sigla).

A search for all finit verbs in Mark returns 1871 for the first and 1873 for the latter (as well as for the older GNT-version) - and even more curious: when comparing the lists, only one verb is found. 

Please take a look at the attached screenshots.

 

1: How come these two "identical" and recent Greek NT are tagged differently?

2: Why does 1873 minus 1871 equal 1?

 

Thanks!

Morten

Edited April 30, 2015 by mortenjensen

[Helen Brown]

Only one verb because you are removing the HITS, i.e. the word list, when you need to remove the CONTENTS i.e. the verse list.

[rokas]

Probably some tagging mistake. I found this one yesterday (marked red in NA28 vs green NA28 sigla) - attachment below.

 

Although that math problem is really interesting.

Edited April 30, 2015 by rokas

[mortenjensen]

Only one verb because you are removing the HITS, i.e. the word list, when you need to remove the CONTENTS i.e. the verse list.

 

Hi Helen,

I am not sure, I understand your idea here. I did try a search on CONTENTS but it only filters verses - and since the same amount of verses are found, this results in no difference. 

There is no difference in number of verses - only in number of hits within these verse.

 

Therefore it seems strange that my search for the difference between the two searches does not return 2 hits.

Morten

[Helen Brown]

By narrowing down the chapters, and then running a comparison I found that ἐντραπήσονται in 12:6 and δαρήσεσθε in 13:9 are parsed differently.

 

I am not sure why they are different.

[Timothy Jenney]

I don't believe there should be a difference. These texts are supposed to be identical, save for the sigla.

 

I reported a difference in parsing in Revelation awhile back as an error.

[Ken Simpson]

As Helen says, it’s interesting, because ID sows that both these words are verbs but they are not being “hit” by the search engine because their parsing is different.

 

e.g. in Mark 13:9 in NA28 δαρήσεσθε is parsed as δαρήσεσθε δέρω   Verb fut part   whereas in NA28 sigla it is δαρήσεσθε δέρω   Verb 2 plur fut pass indic 

 

Hence why it is picked up in one search and not the other. - to me it looks like the NA28 gets it wrong.

 

Similarly in 12:6 (NA28)  ἐντραπήσονται is parsed in ID as ἐντραπήσονται ἐντρέπω (ἐν, τρέπω)   Verb fut part  to make ashamed, respect (Predicate) and in NA28 sigla ἐντραπήσονται ἐντρέπω (ἐν, τρέπω)   Verb 3 plur fut pass indic  to make ashamed, respect. Again, NA28 is not likely to be correct IMHO.

 

So the searches are working correctly, but the tagging differs

[Timothy Jenney]

Interesting, so the texts are identical, but the morphological tagging is different. I wonder if we could get one of our developers to compare the two tagging databases. Hmmm...

[Ken Simpson]

Here is a list of where the tagging differs between NA28 and NA28 Sigla.

 

However, there are some very strange results here. I haven’t checked them all, but eg. πονηρὸν in Matt 5:11 is marked as different, but as far as I can tell from ID is identical

 

in Mat 5:37, the second ναί is marked as different, but has identical tagging as the first, and it’s correspondent in the sigla version

 

Mat 5:48 marks both texts as -- so I can’t tell what the difference is there, i.e. what accordance is picking up. There is no textual difference.

 

IN other places where the -- is indicated on both sides, at least sometimes there is a word marked as missing, when there is no word marked as missing.

 

Mat 15:31 has multiple issues but ὑγιεῖς is marked as being in one text but not the other - when it is plainly there, and likewise with υφλοὺς βλέποντας· καὶ

 

I think this is quite important to work out.

 

List.txt

Edited April 30, 2015 by Ken Simpson

[Λύχνις Δαν]

This is interesting. So little chance to play with future participles. Anyhow, the UBS Greek NT (Sigla) follows the NA Greek NT (Sigla) for the most part.  Incidentally, this tagging just looks incorrect in the non-sigla case. First it looks incomplete not specifying any case, number or gender, nor any voice. Secondly it doesn't look like a future part. does it ? Shouldn't a fut pass part be something like δαρήσομενΧΧΧΧ ?

 

Anyhow, I got curious - I know - dead cat waiting to happen - and found that this search is interesting against NA Greek NT : [verb future part]. This returns 41 hits. Most of these exhibit the same incomplete tagging "fut part". The 13 that appear in the sigla case are apparently correct in the non-sigla text. It's just got some bad future tags.

 

I don't have the NA variant with sigla co cannot compare that but the ναι case in Matt 5:37 does not appear in comparison of texts between NA and UBS but the υμων immediately preceding the ναι does. The tagging as represented in ID is very slightly different but I do not know if this is significant :

 

NA: ὑμῶν σύ   Pronoun (pers) 2 plur gen  you; you people (when pl) (Adjunct)

[ESVS] G4771  you

 

UBS: ὑμῶν σύ   Pronoun (pers) 2 gen  you; you people (when pl)

[ESVS] G4771  you

 

UBS missing the plur. I'm assuming the syntax tagging is not confusing the issue.

 

Thx

D
 

Edited May 1, 2015 by Daniel Semler

[Ken Simpson]

Hi Daniel, the prefect passive participle is δαρηθησόμενος, η, ον but there is no demerits for not knowing that, as they are fiendishly rare.

[Λύχνις Δαν]

You meant future not perfect right ?

I had drawn the paradigm from Steven's and assumed that δαρεω formed a second future rather than a first (to use recently deprecated terminology) because BDAG describes the future as a second.

 

δέρω 1 aor. ἔδειρα. Pass.: 2 fut. δαρήσομαι; 2 aor. ἐδάρην (Hom. et al.; LXX) orig. ‘skin, flay’ (

 

You're right there is not much call for this (though Philo has over 300 fut. part.) but I'm a nut for morphology (though some would say the qualification is not required ). So is yours above a first ? or am I missing something here still (highly probable) ?

 

Thx

D

[Ken Simpson]

Yes I meant Future - sorry Daniel

 

Interesting - it’s a strange one this. If, as BDAG seems to suggest, the sFPI is δαρήσομαι then the FPP Ms would be the verbal root δαρ + connecting vowel - ή - plus the passive participle ending - θησόμενος.

 

The standard passive future indicative ends with σομαι and the lengthening vowel ή is there to avoid a difficult sound conjunction I imagine (unless as may be, the primitive of δέρω is actually δαρέω).

 

I think that’s right, but then who am I to say.

 

​(Musings of a tired minister/surgeon on a Friday evening)

Edited May 1, 2015 by Ken Simpson

[Ken Simpson]

Just looking at LSJ, the present passive participle is δαρθείς, so the future passive participle may omit the ή and be δαρθησόμενος... so the muse about the primitive may be completely wrong.

[mortenjensen]

Ken, can I ask, how did you compile this list of different tagging?

[mortenjensen]

Daniel, which book/resource are you referring to with Steven's? I have been using Mounce fire trains down morphology paradigms, but maybe there is something better?

[mortenjensen]

All in all: are we looking at some tagging errors in NA28, non-sigla?

Morten

[Ken Simpson]

Hi Morten, it’s VERY easy in Accordance. I’ll do you a little video...

 

 

 

Interestingly, and annoyingly, the list is different when I do it this time.

 

I realised the difference was that my first comparison was Matthew and this is Mark. It’s a tired end of the week...

Compare texts.mp4.zip

Edited May 1, 2015 by Ken Simpson

[Λύχνις Δαν]

Hey Morten,

 

  I tried Mounce MBG first (as I pretty much always do with morphology) but it's very thin on the future participle. I went to Steven's because I have found he has a bunch of handy tables and straightforward descriptions of things like this. This is the About This Text... info :

 

Stevens’ NT Greek Grammar

New Testament Greek, Second Edition (Stevens Greek)

by Gerald L. Stevens

© Copyright 1997 by University Press of America®, Inc.  All rights reserved.  Used by permission. Any and all other rights not granted to OakTree Software, Inc. are retained by University Press of America®, Inc.

Electronic text hypertexted and prepared by OakTree Software, Inc.
Version 1.4
 

 

Thx

D

Edited May 1, 2015 by Daniel Semler

[Λύχνις Δαν]

Hi Ken,

 

  Ok thanx for the explanation. My derivation was like this :

 

  verbal root δαρ +connecting vowel η + tense formative - ήσ - plus the passive participle ending - όμενος.

  following Mounce/Stevens, and the θ dropped because of the second, which I see above could be wrong.

  In any case that gives : δαρηἠσομενος and then the double ηη contracts leading to δαρησομενος.

 

  Anyhow not sure - I will study it more as I have time. The PPP is interesting - in the end though sufficiently different that it could not  be confused with the indicative.

 

  Thanx again.

 

Thx

D
 

[Ken Simpson]

OK Daniel, I will look forward to further musings, or the chiming in by more erudite scholars than we two. 

[Timothy Jenney]

I have forwarded this discussion to the head of our development team. He has passed it along to the person that manages our morphological databases. I trust we will hear something definitive soon.

[Rick Bennett]

We found one of the causes. We will continue to investigate and post an update to the text(s) as soon as possible.

 

Thanks for the report and feedback.

[Julia Falling]

Thanks for the fast response, Rick & Tim.  Good catch, Morten.