coding discrepancy between BHS and BHS-T

[Martin Z]

I searched for all Perfect Waw Consecutive in 1-2 Sam with the search code  [VERB perfect consecutive] .

 

In BHS-T, it yields 268 hits, while in BHS it yields 306. The latter hits equals to that in BW.

 

Looks like the BHS-T missed quite a few Pwc occurrences. The different 38 verbs are coded as Perfect (non-waw consecutive).

 

I know it is not always clear whether a form should be taken as Pwc or just Perfect.

 

Can anyone explain the rationale behind the discrepancy?

[Helen Brown]

I am not sure which BHS you are searching. The BHS-W4 had several versions and it now replaced (free upgrade) by the HMT-W4. The Groves Center is responsible for providing and updating the tagging of the Westminster text, and is constantly refining the tagging and correcting discrepancies.

 

We did apply the Westminster tagging to the BHS-T several years ago, but we are not able to devote the resources to repeat that procedure with the annual updates of the Groves Center tagging. hence the tagging of the BHS-T lags behind and has increasingly greater differences.

[Martin Z]

This is the version I am using.

Hebrew Bible (Biblia Hebraica) Tagged

 

Hebrew Masoretic Text with Westminster Hebrew Morphology (HMT-W4)

 

Groves-Wheeler Westminster Hebrew Morphology, v. 4.20.

J. Alan Groves Center for Advanced Biblical Research

2960 Church Road, Glenside, PA 19038-2000  U.S.A.

 

Copyright © 1991-2016 The J. Alan Groves Center for Advanced Biblical Research (“The Groves Center”). All Rights Reserved.

Redistribution of this file without permission is prohibited.

 

Version 1.7

 

 

   

[Helen Brown]

Right, that is the latest and most accurate tagged version. The text also differs slightly from the BHS as it is conformed to what these editors consider the Leningrad Codex represents. The differences are slight, mainly in vowels and cantillation marks.

[Martin Z]

If I have any question concerning coding on ambiguous words, where should I turn for confirmation?

It would be help if any Hebrew scholar can double check this case for me and other Accordance users who are interested.

 

For example, the וְהָיָ֗ה in 1 Sam 10:9, both HMT-W4 and BHS-T code as waw + perfect. In an article, it is regarded as weqatal.

It has exegetical significance. I cite a paragraph below.

 

The articles is: Notarius, Tania. “Prospective WEQATAL in Biblical Hebrew : Dubious Case or Unidentified Category.” Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 34, no. 1 (2008): 39–55.

 

the case discussed is on page 43 (Hebrew retyped).

 

[Trans. of 1 Sam 10:9 by the author:] As he was (about) to turn away and to leave Samuel, God gave him another heart; and all these signs were fulfilled that day.

 

The verbal form והיה marks the future in the past reference within this narrative passage. The events which are to happen in the future in the past are the events of Saul's turning away and going, and they are expressed by infinitive construct phrases; the turning away (כהפנתו) precedes the going (ללכת), and this is expressed by the preposition כְּ , but I will disregard this temporal complexity in the following mapping of the passage for the sake of conformity; these two actions are about to happen after Saul had a change of heart. The prophecy is fulfilled even before Saul starts to move and meets the prophets 

[Robert Holmstedt]

From a strictly morphological perspective, והיה is not a "verbal form," but the conjunction ו plus the verb form היה (whatever label you prefer). A database like Westminster's should be as morpho-centric as possible. So, in terms of the database perspective, Westminster is on solid ground. Whether or not you accept Notarius' argument about the further conventionalization (or grammaticalization, or whatever process she uses -- I've forgotten) of ו + היה as a complex verbal entity is beyond the database and up to your discernment.