Jump to content

וְ + imperfect clause search


Michel Gilbert
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi,

 

I have been trying to find every וְ + imperfect clause, excluding clauses that are jussive and cohortative in form and meaning, and clauses with לֹא in them.

 

I have read the Negating Element Items page at http://accordancefiles2.com/helpfiles/68K/content/topics/11_ggtt/negating_element_items.htm

 

However, I have been unsuccessful so far. I would be much obliged if someone sent me a screenshot of how to do this. I have the syntax module if that helps.

 

Thank you.

 

 

Michel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m not 100% sure if this is what you are after, but is this what you want? (I hope I understand what you are looking for...)

 

post-29509-0-40526100-1412821751_thumb.png

 

So as I understand this logic,

 

The clause (top level) has a waw followed by an imperfect - and that verb cannot have a cohortative or jussive form or meaning.

 

Also, as part of that clause, lo cannot be in it anywhere, hence the negated option. And ticked “search both ways” so that lo can be anywhere in the clause.

 

I think that will find what you want, though I am not expert in syntax searches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Ken,

 

You understand my question, except I don't need וְ and the imperfect to be within 1.

 

I tried almost the exact search, with לא in a different column. But it doesn't negate it. See the attached screenshot:

 

 

 

Thanks.

Screenshot, לא not negated.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK - I think I see my mistake in logic. Sorry for the misleading track.

 

The issue is that in the construct we devised the negated lo is outside the ו + imperfect list, so if we add לא in as a negated inter item, I think it gives us what we want, and it makes it even better if we add the PLACE 1 under the ו because (as I understand it) you want the clauses to just that contain a ו, but that begin with a ו and contain an imperfect.

 

So try this.

 

post-29509-0-04258800-1412835661_thumb.png

 

Do you think this better reflects what you are looking for?

Edited by Ken Simpson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ken,

 

At first glance it looks like it does. It's late, so I'll try it tomorrow.

 

Thank you very much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No worries Michel. Keep back at me if it’s not quite what you want. It’s real fun trying to construct and solve these. ^_^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be clear, I'm not sure how this is a syntax module question. It looks to me like a complex morphological search, not a syntax one. But I'm open to correction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ken,

When I drag the NOT command to the INTER box, it does not negate it. The red bar just disappears.

See attached screenshot.

Thanks.

Accordance 10.4.3.2 for Windows

Windows 8.1 Pro, Dell Inspiron 17r-5721 with Intel Core i7 3537U CPU, x64

Screenshot, can't negate INTER.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Robert,

 

It may not technically be a syntax search, at least from the perspective of a trained linguist, but one of the practical uses of the syntax module is to limit morphological searches to clauses. I take advantage of all the syntax levels/categories for morphological searches whenever I can.

 

[While I am on this topic, if perchance you read, "Another major concern is that incorrect tags in the parsing information might affect grammatical and syntax searches" at http://www.accordancebible.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=13494&page=3 , I meant that errors might creep in when one combines the syntax categories with morphological tags. I did not mean there were errors in the syntax module.]

 

However, my interest is in the syntax of those clauses. Twenty eight years ago at TEDS I took a course on HB syntax that, among other things, explained the syntax of background, circumstantial, and wayyiqtol clauses, based on a synthesis of Richter's clausal analysis in Grundlagen einer althebräischen Grammatik, Gross' Verbform und Funktion: Wayyiqtol für die Gegenwart, Michel's Tempora und Satzstellung in den Psalmen, Anderson's The Sentence in Biblical Hebrew, and Sailhamer's own ideas.

 

 

Yesterday I was wondering whether וְ + subject =noun or noun phrase + imperfect could be the functional equivalent of a וַיִּקְטֹל clause. Sailhamer taught that וְ doesn't convert a tense, so (besides the shortened forms) all I see in וַיִּקְטֹל is a ו , a pronominal element, and an imperfect verb . So I wanted to search for וְ + impf, excluding volitive meanings, read the clauses to get a sense of their syntax, and then run true syntax searches on word order, and elements shifted before the verb. If we believe וַיִּקְטֹל is based on semitic יקטל , and that there is a past narrative conjugation, couldn't this conjugation appear in other places?

 

(Edit: A cursory reading suggests to me that the functional equivalent would be וְ + something intervening between it and the verb that is not the subject + imperfect + subject )

 

I am not a trained linguist, but the syntax modules push me to read more on the subject. Would you be willing to list a few books and articles we should read, either on this forum, or in the Manual you are preparing?

 

The syntax module is wonderful. Thank you for your work. I can't wait to get the remaining books.

 

Michel

 

http://www.degruyter.com/view/product/176594

Edited by Michel Gilbert
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This Year I had contact with the deGruyter Verlag and I know that they will work with Accordance.

 

My Question there was about the Walter Bauer (BDAG in english) in german to implant in Accordance. But my intense were also for other modules too.

 

Greetings

 

Fabian

Edited by Fabian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Fabian,

My de Gruyter link was a roundabout way of revealing my full name; I am the author of that book. I thought Dr. Holmstedt might be interested.

 

I do wish to remain anonymous otherwise.

 

Michel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The larger font sizes are not my doing; my fonts don't appear the same after I press Post. I am not shouting at anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Ken,

When I drag the NOT command to the INTER box, it does not negate it. The red bar just disappears.

See attached screenshot.

 

Thanks.

 

Accordance 10.4.3.2 for Windows

Windows 8.1 Pro, Dell Inspiron 17r-5721 with Intel Core i7 3537U CPU, x64

 

 

 

 

Well, I think you can. No I am not trying to be contrary, but I think you will find that the issue is that the two boxes overlap. If you make the clause box big enough for the INTER box to exist in it easily with no overlap, then I think you will find it will negate happily. I had to play with the construct for a while to work out why it wouldn’t negate. Sorry, I should have made a note about it.

 

I have posted a screen cap movie for you to see what I mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Ken,

When I drag the NOT command to the INTER box, it does not negate it. The red bar just disappears.

See attached screenshot.

 

Thanks.

 

Accordance 10.4.3.2 for Windows

Windows 8.1 Pro, Dell Inspiron 17r-5721 with Intel Core i7 3537U CPU, x64

 

 

 

 

Well, I think you can. No I am not trying to be contrary, but I think you will find that the issue is that the two boxes overlap. If you make the clause box big enough for the INTER box to exist in it easily with no overlap, then I think you will find it will negate happily. I had to play with the construct for a while to work out why it wouldn’t negate. Sorry, I should have made a note about it.

 

I have posted a screen cap movie for you to see what I mean.

Construct and inter.mp4.zip

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glad to be of help. And I always learn when I try these things. Like I keep saying, I have been using Accordance for 20years, but I only feel like I know about 5%!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ken,

 

Here is an opportunity to learn even more.

 

In what appears to be the same search, there there are 1643 hits in your first post, 2771 in your screencap movie, and 5856 in mine. If I limit וְ to place 1, the number goes down to 4634.

 

 

 

See attached screenshot.

Screenshot, 5856 hits.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK - there’s definitely an anomaly here. I might have to work on it and ask some questions. I just ran the same construct on different versions of accordance and got different answers...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK - I cannot reproduce what you have anyway that I can think of here.

 

Can you please save the workspace and email it to me? Plus, can you please check that all your texts (specially HMT-W4 are updated and the syntax trees are updated). And, what version of the Accordance software are you using?

 

Thanks (I will PM my email address to you)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you try this one and see what results you get?

 

Thanks

 

 

Construct.accord.zip

Edited by Ken Simpson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Ken,

 

 

I get 5856 hits; with ו in first place I get 4634.

 

I will read through them all, see if they are all ו + Imperfect, and report back to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Michel,

 

 

Hi Robert,

 

It may not technically be a syntax search, at least from the perspective of a trained linguist, but one of the practical uses of the syntax module is to limit morphological searches to clauses. I take advantage of all the syntax levels/categories for morphological searches whenever I can.

 

 

I'm glad to hear this!

 

 

[While I am on this topic, if perchance you read, "Another major concern is that incorrect tags in the parsing information might affect grammatical and syntax searches" at http://www.accordancebible.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=13494&page=3 , I meant that errors might creep in when one combines the syntax categories with morphological tags. I did not mean there were errors in the syntax module.]

 

I did not take it this way, but of course there are errors in the syntax. I will spend the next 10 years proofing the texts. Dean Forbes chuckles about it every time we chat.

 

 

However, my interest is in the syntax of those clauses. Twenty eight years ago at TEDS I took a course on HB syntax that, among other things, explained the syntax of background, circumstantial, and wayyiqtol clauses, based on a synthesis of Richter's clausal analysis in Grundlagen einer althebräischen Grammatik, Gross' Verbform und Funktion: Wayyiqtol für die Gegenwart, Michel's Tempora und Satzstellung in den Psalmen, Anderson's The Sentence in Biblical Hebrew, and Sailhamer's own ideas.

 

Yesterday I was wondering whether וְ + subject =noun or noun phrase + imperfect could be the functional equivalent of a וַיִּקְטֹל clause. Sailhamer taught that וְ doesn't convert a tense, so (besides the shortened forms) all I see in וַיִּקְטֹל is a ו , a pronominal element, and an imperfect verb . So I wanted to search for וְ + impf, excluding volitive meanings, read the clauses to get a sense of their syntax, and then run true syntax searches on word order, and elements shifted before the verb. If we believe וַיִּקְטֹל is based on semitic יקטל , and that there is a past narrative conjugation, couldn't this conjugation appear in other places?

 

Well, that's a sticky issue. The simple answer is "yes," there are preterite yiqtols without the way- on the front. They are most in poetic texts and can be only surely identified by the "short" morphology that appears in the weak verbs or Hifil examples (e.g., יַצֵּב in Deut 32.8). Sadly, the simple answer is inadequate, and these "short" forms are questioned by some and qualified (rightly) by others (I suggest reading John Cook, Time and the Hebrew Verb (Eisenbrauns, 2012), p. 260ff.

 

I agree with Sailhamer that the waw converts nothing. It's just a waw. But I disagree that the yiqtol is the same in every case -- again, I recommend Cook's book, which presents the best model for the BH verbal system.

 

 

(Edit: A cursory reading suggests to me that the functional equivalent would be וְ + something intervening between it and the verb that is not the subject + imperfect + subject )

 

I am not a trained linguist, but the syntax modules push me to read more on the subject. Would you be willing to list a few books and articles we should read, either on this forum, or in the Manual you are preparing?

 

The syntax module is wonderful. Thank you for your work. I can't wait to get the remaining books.

 

Michel

 

http://www.degruyter.com/view/product/176594

 

Interesting volume. I hope to find time to read it. (I hardly have time to read emails these days.)

 

Again, I'm glad to hear that our syntax module is useful. The full manual will follow the final (first) complete draft of the database. I tried to start a manual a few times, but we kept changing the subtleties of the searching interface, which made it useless to continue since my examples became outdated with each change.

 

I tried to describe the basic ideas in my Accordance presentation at SBL in 2010, and provided some good reading in the footnotes for the adventurous. I thought I agve it to the Accordance folks to post, but I only see my older presentation from 2009. So I have attached it here for anyone interested to read. I only include the introduction and not the subsequent 70 pages of single-spaced tagging notes. Those are the germ of a reference grammar that I am co-writing.

 

 

Holmstedt_HebrewSyntaxIntroduction_draft2014.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Ken,

 

I don't need to read them all.

 

I just went through all the results in the Law/Pentateuch, with ו restricted to Place 1, and they are all correct, with one possible exception (Deut 13:16). My numbers are 564 verses, with 1304 hits.

 

If I delete the Place 1 criterion, the hits rise to 1826.

 

So, your figure of 1643 is definitely too low for the whole HB; 2771 is also probably incorrect.

 

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Robert,

 

 

Just a brief response.

 

I just went through the ו in first place + impf clauses in the Law, and I was very impressed by the accurate tagging of clause boundaries.

 

I agree with you that yiqtols are not the same in every case.

 

Cook's Time and the Hebrew Verb is already high on my list; I would like to read it soon.

 

[Edit: The null constituent in my remark to Fabian, "I thought Dr. Holmstedt might be interested in it," refers to my name, not my book.]

 

Thanks for the attachment. I'm sure that many will download it.

 

And thanks for taking the time to respond this very busy weekend.

 

 

Happy Thanksgiving

Edited by Michel Gilbert
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Prof Holmstedt, would you be happy for me to post this version of your notes on the Accordance Exchange?

 

Thanks


Hi Ken,

 

I don't need to read them all.

 

I just went through all the results in the Law/Pentateuch, with ו restricted to Place 1, and they are all correct, with one possible exception (Deut 13:16). My numbers are 564 verses, with 1304 hits.

 

If I delete the Place 1 criterion, the hits rise to 1826.

 

So, your figure of 1643 is definitely too low for the whole HB; 2771 is also probably incorrect.

 

Thanks.

 

There are some strange things happening with the counts I think, still investigating in the spare time. Glad the pentateuch ones seem correct!

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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...