Jump to content

Double Accusative | Object-Complement in Matthew


rwrobinson88
 Share

Recommended Posts

The search doesn't require adjacency (or shouldn't). In my Hebrew set up as I describe it, there are many non-adjacent complements. 

 

I was just looking at the Greek trees and think that there might be a different in the nesting versus the Hebrew. That might account for the differences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok that's good to know - I guess I was never sure of that. Let me take the test query I have and try removing it and see what happens.

 

Do you have a couple of Hebrew examples I could compare with the Greek ? It would probably be good for my Hebrew to figure it out for myself but it might not be so good for validation purposes :)

 

Thx

D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was getting compounded complements back as hits. e.g., Matt 5:17

 

So, I had to negate conjunctions and particles which required using the within.

Edited by RyanWRobinson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had a look at this and I can see what you mean. I tried doing a search for such compounds and removing them but that is no easier.

 

I think there may be a case to have another radio button on the Composite Phrase to select or not the Compound Composite, in the Phrase Structure section. That way you could have four choices - One segment, All segments, Contiguous and Compound. Ideally these wouldn't be either or but choose the ones you want. Or perhaps something similar - not quite sure my suggestion their exactly fits the architecture.

 

thx

D

Edited by דָנִיאֶל
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strange. My double comp search is not confused by compound comps. Of course they are included in the hits, but not with themselves counted as separate comps -- they are counted as one distinct from the other part of the "double" comp in the search. I don't have access to the tagging of the NT, so I can't sort out the differences. Sorry.

 

edit -- ok, that's not correct. Now I see that some of the hits are, in fact, compounds. That's not useful. I'll have to report this -- I think the radio button or the ability to negate (as in some of the morph screens) is necessary.

 

דָּנִיאֵל, 

 

Do you want specific verses or a screenshot, or my workspace (which I believe is already uploaded to the syntax workspaces somewhere in the Accordance site)?

Edited by Robert Holmstedt
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Robert,

 

Just for fun, how about a related search to find all the examples of hendiadys/merism in predicate phrases? I know I could do it myself (later, when I'm not so busy), but I would be interested in your thoughts on the supposed one in Gen. 1:1, especially with the double את. I think a reexamination of this whole issue is worthy of a dissertation.

 

Regards,

 

Michel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

דָּנִיאֵל, 

 

Do you want specific verses or a screenshot, or my workspace (which I believe is already uploaded to the syntax workspaces somewhere in the Accordance site)?

 

Either works for me - the workspace is probably marginally more useful, but I can use either. I couldn't see it amongst the workspaces I built from your "Brief...UserGuide .pdf" and I built them all, nor is the term 'double complement' mentioned in the doc so far as I can see.

 

Thx

D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert

 

If you could throw it out there for the Greek side of things too, that would be great! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Robert,

 

Just for fun, how about a related search to find all the examples of hendiadys/merism in predicate phrases? I know I could do it myself (later, when I'm not so busy), but I would be interested in your thoughts on the supposed one in Gen. 1:1, especially with the double את. I think a reexamination of this whole issue is worthy of a dissertation.

 

Regards,

 

Michel

 

So I built the double comp search in Hebrew and Gen 1:1 came up, because of the issue with compounds I believe. Interesting. I had never thought of that as hendiadys. That said I haven't really studied it even in Greek. Hmmmm..... I suspect that many of these would be represented as compound complements and would be easy to find, particularly with an enhancement to the handling of compounds suggested above. But I'd have to play with it to see.

 

Thx

D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, the basic double comp search results in Gen 1:1 and 1:2, which is what drew my attention to the problem. By double-clicking on the complement itself you can choose single versus compound and it doesn't hit these two and many more -- the hits reduce drastically and as far as I skimmed were accurate.

 

I'm a bit scattered for too much of this at the moment, but I'm not following how this could identify merism, since that depends not on syntax but on specific lexical items (I'm avoiding the use of the phrase "word-pairs" since it is overused, quite inaccurately). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I should have said that it would find candidates - there would be weeding. I don't know what else would be required to narrow it down.

 

I didn't realize we already had a way to see single vs compound. I'll look at that.

 

Thx

D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm a bit scattered for too much of this at the moment, but I'm not following how this could identify merism, since that depends not on syntax but on specific lexical items (I'm avoiding the use of the phrase "word-pairs" since it is overused, quite inaccurately). 

 

Hi,

 

That’s what I was getting at - we analyze the hits, and decide if any are cases of merism. But who decides which lexical items are candidates? There doesn’t seem to be any syntactical clues, except ו.

 

It just so happens that in Gen 1,1, a highly touted case, את השׁמים ואת הארץ is different than השׁמים והארץ and ארץ ושׁמים in 2:4. So I wonder if syntax does play a role in negating merism.

 

FWIW, there are many reasons I think את השׁמים ואת הארץ is not a merism for the physical universe, even from Gen 1: יקרא אלהים לרקיע שׁמים , then יהי מארת ברקיע השׁמים , i.e., השׂמים are in השׂמים of verse one.

 

I think there could be a dissertation on the syntax of merism in the ANE languages - even to prove your simple point, "identifying merism depends not on syntax but on specific lexical items," and to determine whether syntax can negate it.

 

Regards,

 

Michel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Michel,

 

Until someone shows me a good theoretical argument to the contrary, I view merism to be a post-syntactic interpretation process.

 

In terms of valency (verb semantics plus syntax), I see no difference between "he created fish and plants" (obviously not a merism) and "he created the heavens and the earth" or "he created good and bad".

 

Robert

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By double-clicking on the complement itself you can choose single versus compound and it doesn't hit these two and many more -- the hits reduce drastically and as far as I skimmed were accurate.

 

This changed the whole search! Simplified everything. I was able to create one search instead of three. And that one search was able to get one more hit that wasn't grabbed by the three. So, this is great! 

 

Thanks for telling us about the feature. This is why I came on here. I want to keep learning about the database and how to engage it through searching.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow -- didn't think that'd be such a successful comment, but I'm glad. You're most welcome. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wanted to post this in case anyone wanted to see it. 

 

post-33565-0-54146700-1509586866_thumb.png

 

I added a little depth on one of the complement phrases because it helped to get one valid hit.

Edited by RyanWRobinson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Until someone shows me a good theoretical argument to the contrary, I view merism to be a post-syntactic interpretation process.

 

In terms of valency (verb semantics plus syntax), I see no difference between "he created fish and plants" (obviously not a merism) and "he created the heavens and the earth" or "he created good and bad".

 

 

 

Hi again,

 

Thanks. That's what I was really hoping for when I suggested an application of the double complement search, i.e., how a trained linguist would describe merism. And your description just confirms what I already thought, even though you expressed it much more elegantly. Even if there are a few merisms in the HB, post-syntactic interpretations of them differ so wildly that I wonder if the term is of much use at all. Even your two examples are open to interpretation. 

 

I guess what I was getting at is I see no difference either, and if lexical items identified as merisms are regularly separated by syntax (in adjoining clauses, phrases, etc.), then merism is definitely diminished in value. 

 

I know this is a bit off topic, but against the background of Egyptian cosmology your interpretation of בראשית (אשר) ברא . . . would benefit from השמים and הארץ being viewed as distinct entities. But of course, another case of post-syntactic interpretation process (also something I'm actually writing about).

 

Anyways, again, thanks for the linguistic comments, irrespective of whether you follow or agree with me. My heart leaps when I read these comments. 

 

Regards.

 

Michel

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...