TYA Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 I've noticed that "perfect" and "imperfect" tenses only occasionally are tagged in Accordance. A word in Hebrew like "vay-ye-daber" (and he spoke) shows up as 3rd masculine singular, but "imperfect" isn't included most of the time in Accordance. Coming from the competitor's software, the "imperfect" is always included in the tagging. And I've checked this in numerous verses in Accordance just to make sure I'm not missing something. It seems hit and miss, but the tense should always be there, and it certainly isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Helen Brown Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 The Westminster database tags the "Aspect" and when it has the wawConsecutive it does not list another "tense." BibleWorks apparently added "imperfect" to the wawConsecutive. Did you find any other examples of a missing Aspect in a verb? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattChristianOT Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 This is a matter of grammatical category. Most grammars will not include "imperfect" (a faulty definition of the verbal function anyways) if it is a Way-consecutive and so the database is not tagged that way. The database is more accurate than Bibleworks at that point as the conjunction adds another level of depth to the verb aspect. You can read about this in John Cook's volume on Verbal Aspect. That is merely my opinion on the matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TYA Posted August 16, 2018 Author Share Posted August 16, 2018 @MattChristian: Thank you for the grammar lesson. But even verbs which we are discussing that are "converted forms" are still technically in the imperfect form, whether you want to call that "faulty designation" or not. For a student who would be using the BHS tagging to learn the difference between imperfect and perfect, having that information is still valuable. They will use an actual grammar to learn verbal aspect, or converted verb forms. To my knowledge, the tagging database isn't intended to show how the verb is *functioning.* Again, that is what grammars or even lexicons may teach. The tagging database is there to give the data. Therefore, I disagree with your comment that Accordance' tagging is "more accurate" than BibleWorks, when actually, Accordance simply has less information than BibleWorks. I, for example, am quite capable of seeing the "imperfect" tag in BibleWorks, while understanding that the verb is "converted" to present, or past tense. But I still like seeing that information. Again, it will be helpful for students who are learning to parse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TYA Posted August 17, 2018 Author Share Posted August 17, 2018 A further point: If someone argues that Accordance doesn't include the tags for perfect or imperfect because they are "faulty definitions," (thus making Accordance more accurate than the competition, as claimed above) then why does Deut 11:31-32 tag the verbs as "perfect" when they describe the future. Deut. 11:31 When you cross the Jordan to go in to occupy the land that the LORD your God is giving you, and when you **occupy** it and **live** in it, Deut. 11:32 you must diligently **observe** all the statutes and ordinances that I am setting before you today. These verbs are tagged in Accordance as "perfect," yet with the waw-consecutive they are technically describing future events. My point is that Accordance has *some* words tagged and others not, and the explanation given above regarding faulty definitions doesn't suffice for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattChristianOT Posted August 17, 2018 Share Posted August 17, 2018 A further point: If someone argues that Accordance doesn't include the tags for perfect or imperfect because they are "faulty definitions," (thus making Accordance more accurate than the competition, as claimed above) then why does Deut 11:31-32 tag the verbs as "perfect" when they describe the future. Deut. 11:31 When you cross the Jordan to go in to occupy the land that the LORD your God is giving you, and when you **occupy** it and **live** in it, Deut. 11:32 you must diligently **observe** all the statutes and ordinances that I am setting before you today. These verbs are tagged in Accordance as "perfect," yet with the waw-consecutive they are technically describing future events. My point is that Accordance has *some* words tagged and others not, and the explanation given above regarding faulty definitions doesn't suffice for that. These verbs are Future tense even though the are "Qatal" forms. This is actually how in most grammars, the designation "perfect" for Qatal forms is inaccurate. The "perfective" tense can in some cases refer to past, present, or future tenses (I.E. the prophetic future Qatal form verbs in Isaiah). You have pointed out the very reason why the tags "perfect" and "Imperfect" are incorrect designations to use in dealing with Hebrew Grammar. I cannot speak for Accordance on this but your example does demonstrate why Hebrew grammar is and has been taught incorrectly for some time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattChristianOT Posted August 17, 2018 Share Posted August 17, 2018 A further point: If someone argues that Accordance doesn't include the tags for perfect or imperfect because they are "faulty definitions," (thus making Accordance more accurate than the competition, as claimed above) then why does Deut 11:31-32 tag the verbs as "perfect" when they describe the future. Deut. 11:31 When you cross the Jordan to go in to occupy the land that the LORD your God is giving you, and when you **occupy** it and **live** in it, Deut. 11:32 you must diligently **observe** all the statutes and ordinances that I am setting before you today. These verbs are tagged in Accordance as "perfect," yet with the waw-consecutive they are technically describing future events. My point is that Accordance has *some* words tagged and others not, and the explanation given above regarding faulty definitions doesn't suffice for that. Also, I never said that these items are left off because they are faulty designations, I merely stated that the phrases perfective and imperfective are faulty and it would not surprise me if they are left off. They are technically still present in the grammatical term "waw- consecutive" as any reference grammar will demonstrate. Just because the tagging does not say imperfect or perfect does not mean it is not there, it simply is using the technical term found in most grammars. That was merely my point. a "waw- consecutive" form just means Waw+ Qatal. The verbs in your example are parsed correctly, but the syntax and context dictates a future rendering, that is not a fault of the tagging, but a fault of the idea of "perfective" action. Which is why the designation "perfective" should be made obsolete, but this is a matter of grammar and linguistics, not Accordance programming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TYA Posted August 17, 2018 Author Share Posted August 17, 2018 @MattChristian: Yes, I understand all the grammar points. With all due respect, that had nothing at all to do with this feature request. The point was simply that some verbs had the tagging in Accordance and some didn't. My other program does universally, and so I assumed that Accordance should too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattChristianOT Posted August 17, 2018 Share Posted August 17, 2018 @MattChristian: Yes, I understand all the grammar points. With all due respect, that had nothing at all to do with this feature request. The point was simply that some verbs had the tagging in Accordance and some didn't. My other program does universally, and so I assumed that Accordance should too. That's fair and I understand the frustration. I am not sure if the Westminster crowd were in with Accordance or if Accordance just "published" the work here (maybe someone from Accordance could answer that) but the database itself (I think) is not related to what they are doing here. Maybe in some upgrades they will consider some of this (and hopefully include some more grammars too!). I am holding out hope for more Akkadian and Ugaritic data but I am not holding my breath... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Helen Brown Posted August 17, 2018 Share Posted August 17, 2018 The Westminster database is exactly what we present in the HMT-W4. We license it from them and include all the tags they give us. Every verb (except participles) is tagged with an aspect. We just display the database in easily readable and searchable ways. We are not at liberty to edit, add, or remove tags. The Deut. 11:31 example is not tagged as wawConsecutive. It has a preceding waw but the aspect is perfect. The tagging of the entire text is not perfect, but it is continually being refined as corrections are suggested to the Groves Institute. These corrections are facilitated by the searches that Bible software applications have made possible and easy. Our text is updated when the Institute release an update to all the software developers. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattChristianOT Posted August 17, 2018 Share Posted August 17, 2018 The Westminster database is exactly what we present in the HMT-W4. We license it from them and include all the tags they give us. Every verb (except participles) is tagged with an aspect. We just display the database in easily readable and searchable ways. We are not at liberty to edit, add, or remove tags. The Deut. 11:31 example is not tagged as wawConsecutive. It has a preceding waw but the aspect is perfect. The tagging of the entire text is not perfect, but it is continually being refined as corrections are suggested to the Groves Institute. These corrections are facilitated by the searches that Bible software applications have made possible and easy. Our text is updated when the Institute release an update to all the software developers. That is what I figured. Thanks for the clarification Helen- And yes- the Deut text is tagged correctly in a way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.c3123c857d1029f98e39c9394adc358d.png)
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now