Jump to content

Predicative Participles


Martin Z
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hello,

 

I want to search for the participles that function as predicates (not adjectival or substantival usages) and their subjects in the BHS.

And further, I want to differentiate Sub-Ptcp from Ptcp-Sub (also I don't want to miss those without explicit subjects).

 

There are a few other things I need to be aware of:

There may be other elements between the Sub and Ptcp, for example, in case of construct chains (I'm not sure if there are other elements or not).

 

Subjects maybe independents words, but they may also be suffix to words such as yesh.

 

Any help will be appreciated!!!

 

Blessings,
Martin
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Martin,

It's critical to know that participles are always taken as complements of a copula, whether null (mostly) or lexical (rarely). I've attached two searches in the zipped file below. Try them out and then we can discuss questions you have.

 

ParticipleSearches.zip

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Robert,

 

Thank you so much for helping me out!

I'm completely new to Syntax search. I actually don't understand the settings you set up for the search. For example, I don't know why you set "scope" as "chapter"instead of, let's say, verse or clause.

 

Based on your setting, I was able to get some results. However, these are less than those listed in Jan Joosten's "The Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew" (a textbook I'm using in this semester. This book maybe download from academia.com, uploaded by Jan Joonsten himself.)

 

from Joonsten, p. 231, Ptcp–Su has around 140 occurrences in OT.

I got 130 hits from your file. That is very close!

 

from Joonsten, p. 231, footnote 8, in Genesis, Ptcp-Su 13 cases; Su–Ptcp 100 cases.

I got 8 cases of Ptcp–Su, and 61 cases of Su-Ptcp.

 

As for me, I'm working on 1-2 Samuels this semester. I will check each case as through as I can in 1-2 Sam (probably in next month). (If I don't have enough time, I will do just 1 Samuel. But I guess there would probably not be enough cases for any conclusion, I may have to do 1-2 Sam).

 

Thanks again!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, the discrepancies are likely due to the fact that our database does not yet include Jeremiah and Isaiah. Thus, while it is *always* important to double-check database results, I doubt there is anything fundamentally different between Joosten's identification of participial clauses and ours.

 

Second, you should also set the syntax searching to chapter or book. Clauses often extend over verses, so setting a syntax search to verse will exclude too many relevant hits. In fact, this may be true in a few cases for chapter, so it's best to set syntax searches to book. The clause and sentence settings do not work for the Hebrew text -- they are only accessible for Greek texts. 

 

Finally, in your study of the BH verbal system, I encourage you to use John Cook's Time and the Biblical Hebrew Verb (Eisenbrauns, 2012) alongside Joosten's book. They make quite an interesting contrast. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed, this has become strangely personal.

 

I find it interesting that by impugning my publishing record, you have also impugned the editors of the journals who accepted my works, including van der Merwe and Joosten. Moreover, the coherence of Principles and Parameters as a linguistic theory can stand on its own quite apart from my work, so criticism of it in this context are wasted breath. 

 

I stand by my initial comment -- Andrason's works don't make sense of the text. He does not give examples in textual context or show that he reads the texts. He is playing around with creating a system (yes, grammar is a system), but one that is detached from actual usage. 

 

And I stand by my second comment -- if you want to opine in academic contexts, earn the right to be heard.

 

Shall we get back to the topic of the thread now -- subject and participle searches?

Edited by Robert Holmstedt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Claiming that Andrason's work is detached from actual usage is funny to me. Seems like someone hasn't read his book on the Hebrew verbal system (probably cause its in Spanish).  Also it seems very uncritical to make arguments against someone's work without actual arguments. If the point is to get back to the topic of the thread, why go further into attacks against someone's work without actual arguments? Can you show where he hasn't given examples that he should have? Can you show where cited examples were ripped from context to make his point? Or will you just say that in public without evidence?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Helen asked for this to stop. Not the purpose for this forum. 

 

Robert, I'd encourage you not to respond further. 

 

To all,

Linguistic and academic zeal is great. But, honoring Accordance's request in the midst of this zeal is more important. :) 

 

Blessings fellas. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Ryan, totally.

 

We don't tolerate these sort of negative comments on (or personal attacks on the authors of) the various other resources we offer. I see no reason we should permit them on our syntactical databases. People disagree. That's the nature of scholarship. Buy/support the resources you find useful. Pass on the other ones.

 

I'm grateful Robert takes the time to help our users with questions. Very few of our authors make themselves so available.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems like everyone except Dr. Holmstedt is being chastised with these last two comments. He opened himself up to an academic criticism by not giving evidence for the claims he has made. That's not a personal attack.

 

Thank you Ryan and Dr. J for seeking good communication in this forum. A tribute to the both of you.

 

https://youtu.be/_lK4cX5xGiQ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, the post wasn't meant for a debate. But I know that all of you just want to help out a person in need such as I.  :)

 

Robert,

I don't have too much time to dive into Accordance in this month. I have a few books to read for an important exam this month. After that, I will examine the participles in the book of Samuels. I will compare my manual findings and the search result that you uploaded for me. I'm sure I will learn a lot in this process.

Regarding Jone Cook, my professor also assigned an article by him for us to read. He did mention that Jooston's opinion on Participle is different from the traditional understanding. Joosten contends that predicative participles should be included in finite verb system. Therefore I want to see for myself.

 

Yochai,

Thank you for bringing Alexander Andrason to my attention. I have not heard of him.  I can't read Spanish (English is already too much for me~~). But I will check out his English articles.

 

Blessings!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Buy/support the resources you find useful. Pass on the other ones.

 

If Accordance offers both we can decide, which we want to buy. Or both.

 

Greetings

 

Fabian

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Martin,

 

If you encounter what you think are errors in the database as you work though the Samuel data, please send them to me. As you will see from other threads in the syntax sub-forum, I consider user input valuable in making the databases more accurate and thus usable. 

 

For others reading this thread, I would simply encourage a revisit of any dictionary for the definition of ad hominem. My comments about Alex Andrason's work on the verbal system had nothing to do with his person. But my assessments do proceed from a principle I consider fundamental  to BH linguistics work, which I'll say again (I'm sure I've said it somewhere before in the Forum) -- the cogency of any linguistic argument on a dead language, like BH, can only be judged by three criteria: 1) whether it is internally coherent, 2) whether it draws upon general theory and data outside Hebrew studies (theory and cross-linguistic data provide the external controls), and 3) whether it makes sense of the text from which the data are drawn. 

 

Whatever one thinks of our syntax database (and I'm encouraged that others are being added; at least one of them I was personally involved in pushing the creator to add to the Accordance library), we have attempted to make it in accordance with all three principles.

Edited by Robert Holmstedt
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...