Jump to content

"Anarthrous" Participle


Francesco Grassi
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi everyone!

 

I am new to the forum, so I apologise if the question has already been asked. I am not even sure I’am posting in the right place, sorry…

 

I am trying to search for EIMI + anarthrous Participles (a common periphrastic construction) in Luke-Acts.

 

Now, I tried the construction in the picture but I cannot really figure out why it still includes occurrences such as Acts 14:12 (...ἦν ἡγούμενος). I am sure something must be wrong with the construction, but I don't know what it is.

 

Any idea?

 

Thanks!

post-33646-0-85633200-1455396517_thumb.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would try an INTER element with the article and negate that. If that's enough to get you going great. If not I can work up an example later on.

 

Thx

D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something like this :

 

post-32023-0-87845000-1455411213_thumb.jpg

 

This excludes the Acts example you were concerned about.

I would also set scope to clause or sentence.

 

Thx

D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Daniel!

 

The fact is that a negated INTER command would exclude all articles from appearing between EIMI and the Participle, not giving me occurrences when the periphrastic construction is still present (e.g. Lu 1:10 ἦν τοῦ λαοῦ προσευχόμενον).

 

I'd need to exclude the article only when it functions as a substantivizer, that is, in most cases right before the participle.

 

And yes, I set the scope to clause, but to no avail. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's true and I was vaguely aware of it when I posted the earlier search.

I poked at your original search a bit and I think the problem is that you should be negating the WITHIN 1 not the article. Of course doing that requires an intervening article but that it not be adjacent to the participle. So then you also need my query which excludes the articles altogether and you OR the two queries. So I tried that and the result both excludes the Acts 14:12 case and includes the Luke 1:10 case.

 

Looks like this :

post-32023-0-32808300-1455423116_thumb.jpg

 

How does this look to you ?

 

That said, I still wonder about your original query and that hit that should not have been found. It appears that your case matches an example in the doc done exactly that way, though with a verb in the subjunctive. I also cannot find an explanation in the doc of negating the WITHIN as I did it, so I don't know why they two would differ. In addition it seems like there are a bunch of false positives in my compound query, such as Matt 1:19.

 

Thx

D

Edited by Daniel Semler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Daniel,

 

I followed your instructions, but I still find cases with the Ptcp preceded by the article (Acts 7:44). The problem is, I think, that with the negated WITHIN 1, I am requiring the article only to be "highlighted" more than one word before the participle, whereas negating the article itself would NOT highlight them. In other words, in both cases it doesn't have any effect on the article I am trying to negate, and at the end, it still includes a verse that shouldn't be there.

(see the first verse, Acts 7:44 in the pictures has been processed)

 

post-33646-0-94733100-1455469338_thumb.png

post-33646-0-24689700-1455469343_thumb.png

 

 

Thanks also to pointing out the other post, but periphrastics do have intervening words, and that deals only with adjacent verbs. I also tried the string search and that, actually works well, although I cannot use useful commands as "AGREE". Or, can I?

 

[VERB participle present] <NOT> <PRECEDED BY> <WITHIN 1 Words> [ARTICLE] <WITHIN 10 Words> =εἰμί@[VERB indicative imperfect]

 

Francesco

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Franceso,

 

  I agree that there are examples with intervening words. I then went back to basics and started using the syntax add-on to try this. That seems both simpler and may be more accurate though I'm not 100% sure. Do you have the syntax add-on for Greek ?

 

Thx

D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't, but I am not allowed to use it anyway. I am doing a research for a class assignment and I have to do the "interpretation" of data myself. 

 

Then, I suspect it really depends how you define periphrastic, how many intervening and which ones you will allow to be present. I am not sure the methodology adopted in the compilation of the syntax module.

 

Thanks!

Edited by Francesco Grassi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I wouldn't say the syntax module would relieve you of the burden of interpretation in any case.

And you cannot just search for a periphrastic construction in the syntax module. The bit that is handy is confining the verbs (ειμι + participle) to the same predicate clause.

 

Good luck with the assignment. If I have other ideas I'll let you know.

 

Thx

D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks again, Daniel, for time and help.

 

I'll probably start using the the Syntax Module soon, but the deadline forces me to stick with the classic method for now.

 

Blessings,

Francesco

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To jump in, even though my knowledge of Greek is pretty limited, try this out:

 

Screen Shot 2016-02-14 at 6.03.40 PM.png

 

Negating a column has always been a bit iffy logically, so I am using the INTER instead.  However, since you specifically want to allow articles that are more than 1 word away, I'm comparing the INTER with a word that is exactly 2 away.  So, you see I still have the εἰμί - VERB interaction based on 10 words, and then I find any old word a distance of 2 prior to the verb, and say there can't be an article in between.

 

However, this also will remove results like the beginning of Math 7:29, so I include a second construct that finds just the 2 and 3 word pairs, at which point I can just exclude articles altogether.

 

How do these results look to you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joel, 

 

I think you've nailed it! I still have to test it on all the NT occurrences of the construction, but as far as Luke/Acts is concerned, it seems to do exactly what I am looking for. Thanks!

 

Ryan,

 

it seems that one would leave out instances when the article do agree with the participle, yet is not modifying the participle (e.g. modifying another part of speech or having any of the function the article can have).

 

 

Thanks everybody for your help!

Edited by Francesco Grassi
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...