Jump to content


Photo

Syntax of Ge. 1:1-3 appears to be broken


  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

#1 miketisdell

miketisdell

    Platinum

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 511 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Accordance Version:12.x
  • Platforms:Windows, Android

Posted 11 September 2019 - 08:38 AM

In Ge. 1:3, ויאמר אלהים should be a simple V/S pair but this seems to have gotten confused because the way that predicate has been connected. 

 

 

 

Attached File  syntax1.jpg   122.03KB   1 downloads

 

 



#2 Robert Holmstedt

Robert Holmstedt

    Platinum

  • Accordance
  • 859 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Accordance Version:12.x
  • Platforms:Mac OS X, iOS

Posted 11 September 2019 - 09:08 AM

I don't see a problem in the diagram -- the ב PP that begins in v. 1 is a large fronted adjunct to the wayyiqtol verb in v. 3. That wayyiqtol must continue after the subject because its complement is the direct speech.

 

In case anyone is interested in trudging the many issues concerning the syntactic options for Gen 1:1-3, I've attached a forthcoming article (it should be out late this Fall or early Winter 2020).

 

Attached File  2020 Eskhult FS Genesis 1.pdf   190.82KB   30 downloads


Edited by Robert Holmstedt, 11 September 2019 - 11:01 AM.

  • mgvh, Brian K. Mitchell and MattChristian like this
Professor, Hebrew and Northwest Semitic Languages
Dept. of Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations
The University of Toronto
blog: ancienthebrewgrammar.wordpress.com
https://utoronto.aca...RobertHolmstedt

#3 miketisdell

miketisdell

    Platinum

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 511 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Accordance Version:12.x
  • Platforms:Windows, Android

Posted 11 September 2019 - 12:16 PM

I don't see a problem in the diagram -- the ב PP that begins in v. 1 is a large fronted adjunct to the wayyiqtol verb in v. 3. That wayyiqtol must continue after the subject because its complement is the direct speech.

 

In case anyone is interested in trudging the many issues concerning the syntactic options for Gen 1:1-3, I've attached a forthcoming article (it should be out late this Fall or early Winter 2020).

 

attachicon.gif2020 Eskhult FS Genesis 1.pdf

 

 

In the original picture, can you see the highlighted text when the cursor is placed over the top level Predicate in vs. 3?

 

I did notice that a construct search appear to work correct i.e. the following search does return vs. 1:3:

 

Attached File  construct1.jpg   98.44KB   1 downloads

 

And if I include the ESV English text, the associated highlights appear to be reasonably accurate for the English text, but not for the Hebrew. When only the search results are displayed, the Hebrew text is not highlighted. 

 

Attached File  syntax2.jpg   102.68KB   1 downloads



#4 miketisdell

miketisdell

    Platinum

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 511 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Accordance Version:12.x
  • Platforms:Windows, Android

Posted 11 September 2019 - 12:19 PM

In the original picture, can you see the highlighted text when the cursor is placed over the top level Predicate in vs. 3?

 

I did notice that a construct search appear to work correct i.e. the following search does return vs. 1:3:

 

attachicon.gifconstruct1.jpg

 

And if I include the ESV English text, the associated highlights appear to be reasonably accurate for the English text, but not for the Hebrew. When only the search results are displayed, the Hebrew text is not highlighted. 

 

attachicon.gifsyntax2.jpg


I am also curious about why the first clause is associated with vs. 1:1-2, but the last cause is independent? (Similar in vs. 1:6)



#5 Robert Holmstedt

Robert Holmstedt

    Platinum

  • Accordance
  • 859 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Accordance Version:12.x
  • Platforms:Mac OS X, iOS

Posted 11 September 2019 - 01:47 PM

Aha. Well, highlighting is not my area. It's fairly complex with the syntax because I think they programmed it to follow the syntactic trees/nodes, not just the words. But, again, I can't give any authoritative answer.

 

V. 3 is an "independent" cause because it's a main clause. It is not subordinate/dependent on another clause. In contrast, v. 1 is a dependent phrase that has within it an unmarked relative clause. And v. 2 is a parenthesis, which almost always have a pragmatic-syntactic anchor in a preceding clause. Parentheses are thus kind of independent and kind of dependent. Odd critters. 


Professor, Hebrew and Northwest Semitic Languages
Dept. of Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations
The University of Toronto
blog: ancienthebrewgrammar.wordpress.com
https://utoronto.aca...RobertHolmstedt

#6 Brian K. Mitchell

Brian K. Mitchell

    Gold

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 415 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:JAPAN
  • Accordance Version:12.x
  • Platforms:Windows

Posted 04 November 2019 - 08:28 AM

In case if anyone is interested in trudging the many issues concerning the syntactic options for Gen 1:1-3, I've attached a forthcoming article (it should be out late this Fall or early Winter 2020).

 

attachicon.gif2020 Eskhult FS Genesis 1.pdf

 

I'm very interested in the aforementioned issues, but then again aren't we all? If I had a dollar for everytime I have heard people argue over have Genesis 1:1 should be translated I would be a rich man.


חַפְּשׂוּ בַּתּוֹרָה הֵיטֵב וְאַל תִּסְתַּמְּכוּ עַל דְּבָרַי

 

Currently running Accordance on:

Windows 10 (64bit)

FRNX Series  (2015)
Core i7-4710 MQ CPU @ 2.50GHz


#7 Robert Holmstedt

Robert Holmstedt

    Platinum

  • Accordance
  • 859 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Accordance Version:12.x
  • Platforms:Mac OS X, iOS

Posted 04 November 2019 - 09:38 AM

I don't *argue* with anyone. I just describe how the syntax actually works (and doesn't work). And I don't need to fit it into any preconceived notions, since I am a creationist (theology) who doesn't pretend to be a geologist or physicist (science). It also helps that 1) I read ANE texts and 2) have a deep appreciation for the power and truth-potential of the literary genre "myth". 

 

:D


  • Brian K. Mitchell, Morgado, Michael Hunt and 1 other like this
Professor, Hebrew and Northwest Semitic Languages
Dept. of Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations
The University of Toronto
blog: ancienthebrewgrammar.wordpress.com
https://utoronto.aca...RobertHolmstedt

#8 Michael Hunt

Michael Hunt

    Gold

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 460 posts
  • Twitter:oddsocks
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sydney, Australia
  • Accordance Version:12.x
  • Platforms:Mac OS X, iOS, Android

Posted 04 November 2019 - 08:22 PM

Thanks for posting your article Robert. It is great that these types of PDF's can now be imported in to Accordance.
Formerly known as oddsocks

#9 Brian K. Mitchell

Brian K. Mitchell

    Gold

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 415 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:JAPAN
  • Accordance Version:12.x
  • Platforms:Windows

Posted 06 November 2019 - 05:52 PM

I don't *argue* with anyone. I just describe how the syntax actually works (and doesn't work). And I don't need to fit it into any preconceived notions, since I am a creationist (theology) who doesn't pretend to be a geologist or physicist (science). It also helps that 1) I read ANE texts and 2) have a deep appreciation for the power and truth-potential of the literary genre "myth". 

 

:D

Thanks for the recent feedback and for your continued work on the syntactical databases! :D

Anyway, I appreciate the syntax databases as I believe they do add to the discussion of whether part of the pericope could be taken as a dependent clause, an independent sentence, or a subordinate clause.

 

And, thanks for the article!


חַפְּשׂוּ בַּתּוֹרָה הֵיטֵב וְאַל תִּסְתַּמְּכוּ עַל דְּבָרַי

 

Currently running Accordance on:

Windows 10 (64bit)

FRNX Series  (2015)
Core i7-4710 MQ CPU @ 2.50GHz


#10 Robert Holmstedt

Robert Holmstedt

    Platinum

  • Accordance
  • 859 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Accordance Version:12.x
  • Platforms:Mac OS X, iOS

Posted 07 November 2019 - 08:04 AM

Glad to be of service. There is one more issue concerning Gen 1:1 that I did not address fully -- the use of the perfect היתה in v. 2 and implications for the syntactic choice. John Cook is writing that up and then we'll merge our two studies into a longer article we'll publish somewhere. It's nutty that the first 3 verses of the Bible are so deceptively complex.


  • Mark Allison, Brian K. Mitchell, Morgado and 2 others like this
Professor, Hebrew and Northwest Semitic Languages
Dept. of Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations
The University of Toronto
blog: ancienthebrewgrammar.wordpress.com
https://utoronto.aca...RobertHolmstedt

#11 Michael Hunt

Michael Hunt

    Gold

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 460 posts
  • Twitter:oddsocks
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sydney, Australia
  • Accordance Version:12.x
  • Platforms:Mac OS X, iOS, Android

Posted 07 November 2019 - 06:36 PM

Glad to be of service. There is one more issue concerning Gen 1:1 that I did not address fully -- the use of the perfect היתה in v. 2 and implications for the syntactic choice. John Cook is writing that up and then we'll merge our two studies into a longer article we'll publish somewhere. It's nutty that the first 3 verses of the Bible are so deceptively complex.

 

I was struck in reading your article Robert again by the thought of the sheer complexities of explaining "beginnings" in the light of one who is shown in this text (and the corpus that follows up from it) to be an eternal being who is above, beyond and over the beginnings and endings of all things. That idea in itself is nuttily complex. 


  • Solly likes this
Formerly known as oddsocks




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users