Tagging options for ambiguous forms (Greek)

[A. Smith]

MP verb forms are tagged with both options everywhere that I've seen. This is wise and leaves much high level theoretical discussion open. I wonder if something similar shouldn't be done, in at least some cases, with case forms (no pun intended). So, as an example, Acts 8.7 ⸀πολλοὶ γὰρ τῶν ἐχόντων πνεύματα ἀκάθαρτα βοῶντα φωνῇ μεγάλῃ  ⸁ἐξήρχοντο, πολλοὶ δὲ παραλελυμένοι καὶ χωλοὶ ἐθεραπεύθησαν· This is a notoriously tricky text and the ancient scribes tried their hand at improving it also. The chief concern, of course, is what to do with the nominative and its relation to ἐξήρχοντο, the only finite verb of the clause . There are several options. But among them is the possibility that πολλοὶ ... τῶν ἐχόντων is topical LD (or nominativus pendens) and that πνεύματα ἀκάθαρτα is actually nominative rather than causative, and so the S of the finite verb. The participle would be nominative in that case, also. As I've said, this is one option of several. But dual tagging in cases like this would alert the user of these options in the same manner as the dual tagging of m/p verb forms. 

[A. Smith]

obviously it would not do to tag EVERY neuter nom/acc form as both, as in most examples the intended case is clear. 

[c. stirling bartholomew]

11 hours ago, A. Smith said:

obviously it would not do to tag EVERY neuter nom/acc form as both, as in most examples the intended case is clear. 

 

Ambiguous forms are with us always. Tagging decisions have been worked out over a period of several decades. The original morphological tags were not intended to resolve complex exegetical judgements. Currently we have a multitude of modules available to assist with the more complex issues of Hebrew and Greek exegesis.

 

Postscript: Is it safe to assume you have seen the note on Acts 8:7 in the Baylor Handbook on Acts, Culy & Parsons?

 

Edited July 11, 2022 by c. stirling bartholomew

[A. Smith]

I haven’t seen it. I’ll check it out sometime but my problem isn’t understanding the text (not right now anyway; it happens!). My main issue was simply to suggest a way of keeping options open. You said, “the original morphological tags were not intended to resolve complex exegetical judgements.“ This is my point. Dual tagging is a way to help avoid just that. In this example, tagging the ambiguous form as accusative is just such a judgment. I realize exegesis is complex. But there aren’t many instances where the neuter nom/acc case is really a question. But, in the few where they are, tagging to reflect both options may help. That’s all.