Jump to content

Question about BHS-T tagging of תֵּט in Prov 4:5 and 4:27


Elijah

Recommended Posts

In BDB Complete the word תֵּט is found under Qal and Prov 4:5 and 4:27 is referenced there (also in Gesenius 18th edition which I have in book form).

When I look at the tagging in those to verses there is a difference. In Prov 4:5 it is Yiqtol Qal Jussive and in Prov 4:27 Yiqtol Hifil Jussive.

I'm still learning hebrew, so I wanted to understand why there is a difference.

 

Prov. 4:5 קְנֵ֣ה חָ֭כְמָה קְנֵ֣ה בִינָ֑ה אַל־תִּשְׁכַּ֥ח וְאַל־תֵּ֝֗ט מֵֽאִמְרֵי־פִֽי׃

Prov. 4:27 אַֽל־תֵּט־יָמִ֥ין וּשְׂמֹ֑אול הָסֵ֖ר רַגְלְךָ֣ מֵרָֽע׃

 

BDB:

Qal 137 Pf. 3 ms. ‏נ׳‎ Gn 33:19 +; 3 fs. ‏נָֽטְתָה‎ Nu 22:33; 2 ms. ‏נָטִיתָ‎ Ex 15:12; 3 pl. ‏נָטוּ‎ ψ 21:12, Is 45:12, נָטָ֫יוּ ψ 73:2 Qr, etc.; Impf. ‏יִטֶּה‎ Jb 15:29, juss. ‏יֵט‎ Zp 2:13; ‏וַיֵּט‎ Gn 12:8 +, ‏וַיֶּט־‎ Gn 26:27 +; 3 fs. ‏תִּטֶּה‎ Jb 31:7, ‏וַתֵּט‎ Nu 22:23 +; 2 ms. juss. ‏תֵּט Pr 4:5, 4:27; ...

Hiph. ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting. I think it should be reported as an error. The morphology is Qal and the meaning also seems Qal. The Hifil form would have a patach under the tav, not the tsere, i.e., /taT/.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an interesting problem.  Koehler-Baumgartner-Stamm 3rd edition of the Hebrew-Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (HALOT), which is the standard we use for the WTM, cites neither Prov. 4:5 or Prov. 4:27 listed in the article for the verb Nun-Tet-Heh, but the form Tet-Tsere-Taw is listed in both the section for the Qal stem of that verb and the section for the Hifil stem of that verb.  However, checking the original German version (HALAT), I find that the Hifil stem says that Tet-PATAH-Taw is the expected form.  This agrees with Prof. Robert Holmstedt's comment above.

Therefore I am changing this parsing in the Westminster Hebrew Morphology (WTM) as suggested.  The version of WTM under development will probably be made available to Accordance / OakTree Software in mid- to late 2017.

 

Mr. Stephen K. Salisbury, Research Fellow

The Groves Center (owner of the Westminster Hebrew Morphology)

 

(As a side note, David J. A. Clines' "Dictionary of Classical Hebrew" appears to have a mistake on this point.  Its article on Nun-Tet-He lists the Prov. 4:5 occurrence and the form "Tet-Tsere-Taw" in the Qal section as expected, but it cites the Prov. 4:27 case in the Hifil section while not offering Tet-Tsere-Taw in the forms for the Hilfil stem, but rather Tet-Patah-Taw.)

 

Edited by StephenKSalisbury
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

great, thanks! I wanted to add that of the accordance modules that I have BHS-W4, HMT-W4, BHS-T all are tagged the same, so I guess they will all get updated by the Accordance team when the morphology changes.

 

(The NET Notes also seem to have a mistake: "sn The two verbs in this verse are from different roots, but nonetheless share the same semantic domain. The first verb is תֵּט (tet), a jussive from ‏נָטָה (natah), which means “to turn aside” (Hiphil); the second verb is the Hiphil imperative of סוּר (sur), which means “to cause to turn to the side” (Hiphil). The disciple is not to leave the path of righteousness; but to stay on the path he must leave evil.")

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks to the experts who have commented here.

 

The latest tagging will be offered in HMT-W4, and should eventually be applied to the BHS-T but we cannot update that text as frequently. BHS-W4 is no longer being updated and should be regarded as obsolete.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The latest tagging will be offered in HMT-W4, and should eventually be applied to the BHS-T

 

Hi,

 

My BHS SESB 2.0 has Qal for both entries. This is the second time in less than a year that the SESB edition is to be preferred over HMT-4 (see http://www.accordancebible.com/forums/topic/17352-difference-between-bhs-w4-and-hmt-w4/?do=findComment&comment=84121 ).

 

I said there, “just because HMT is updated more often than BHS, it doesn't mean HMT is more accurate! It may just mean BHS doesn't have as many errors.” What I meant is the SESB tagging may be more accurate. Now I see that BHS-T in Acc is tagged with the Groves morphology, and not the GBS’s.

 

I’m wondering why Acc doesn’t offer BHS with the Stuttgart morphology (like Logos and BW).

 

Thanks.

 

Regards,

 

Michel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Michel, you lost me at SESB ? What is that ?

 

Thx

D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Hi Fabian,

 

Yes, I visited that site years ago before I found the equivalent in Logos, and since then it has become available in BW. Logos still calls the BHS, “Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia: SESB 2.0 Version with Apparatus and WIVU Introduction.”

 

Regards,

 

Michel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I know the SESB was based on a Lo?os engine, and it had need an older version of the Internet Explorer. But then Microsoft has canceled this version of IE and so the SESB was not usable anymore. In that L* had canceled the Libronix and had advised to the customers to go to Lo?os. Some of the modules of the SESB had L* then unlocked to the ex SESB customers.

 

It's only a wild guess, but it can be true. The DBG/GBS formerly the seller of the SESB was angry and sell now Accordance and make the German surface translation for Accordance

 

Greetings

 

Fabian

Edited by Fabian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Hi,

 

I’m not asking for SESB to be included in Acc, just why BHS Stuttgart morphological tagging isn’t paired with BHS-T. If the Stuttgart tagging is only available in a larger package like the one in Logos and BW, paired with BHS SESB 2.0, some would still buy it. If I had to choose, I’d choose DBG tagging. I still think it has fewer errors, or made better judgment calls.

 

Regards

Link to comment
Share on other sites

O.K. thanks. 

 

Perhaps the successor of the WIVU comes to Accordance 12.

 

Greetings

 

Fabian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shebanq has some interesting stuff going on. LAF (Linguistic Annotation Format) looks interesting. I have had similar thoughts on some of this which I should publish somewhere sometime. I note they also deal with anchors which you pretty much have to do I think. Interesting ...

 

thx

D

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 years later...

Has this tagging error been forgotten? It's more than five years I brought it to attention (I use the recommended HMT-W4).

Edited by Elijah
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Any news on this? Will this be covered in HMT-W4 V3.0?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll run these by @David Lang in our next meeting.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
On 6/4/2023 at 7:37 PM, Nathan Parker said:

I'll run these by @David Lang in our next meeting.

 

And the result is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had it in my notes, but I can't get my notes to load on my new MacBook Air. DM me about this tomorrow, and I'll see if I can dig them up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Nathan Parker said:

I had it in my notes, but I can't get my notes to load on my new MacBook Air. DM me about this tomorrow, and I'll see if I can dig them up.

 

DM... for what purpose?  I'd like to know the answer, or result, of your conversation with David Lang regarding this; as I'm sure the others who have posted here would also appreciate a meaningful response to a 2016 issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still locked out of my notes on this (firewall issue), so I re-emailed David Lang to get a quicker answer.

 

The reason I've asked people to DM me about stuff this week is solely to remind me to followup. I'll post all responses publicly.

 

This week I'm migrating data between two Macs and two iPhones, so I'm hopping back and forth between four devices at the moment. My firewall is also blocking my notes app that stores all of my reminders and to-do lists (it should be approved today), so I'm asking people to give me a little extra push on reminders so I don't overlook anything. I receive an email for each DM that comes through, so even if I forget somewhere else, I'll see the reminder in my email box.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Nathan Parker said:

I'm still locked out of my notes on this (firewall issue), so I re-emailed David Lang to get a quicker answer.

 

The reason I've asked people to DM me about stuff this week is solely to remind me to followup. I'll post all responses publicly.

 

This week I'm migrating data between two Macs and two iPhones, so I'm hopping back and forth between four devices at the moment. My firewall is also blocking my notes app that stores all of my reminders and to-do lists (it should be approved today), so I'm asking people to give me a little extra push on reminders so I don't overlook anything. I receive an email for each DM that comes through, so even if I forget somewhere else, I'll see the reminder in my email box.

 

Thank you for the update, and I will be looking forward to what David has to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/4/2023 at 3:40 AM, Elijah said:

Any news on this? Will this be covered in HMT-W4 V3.0?

 

Development on HMT-W4 3.0 was completed several months ago. Perhaps it got lost in the pipeline. I'm sure it'll be released soon. 

Edited by Mark Allison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark -- someone needs to send me a list of the corrections made in the HMT-W4 3.0 file so that I can make sure the syntax aligns. Could you pass this long?

 

Robert

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Robert Holmstedt said:

Mark -- someone needs to send me a list of the corrections made in the HMT-W4 3.0 file so that I can make sure the syntax aligns. Could you pass this long?

 

Robert

 

 

Will do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...