Jump to content

Question about an Indirect Object in the Hebrew Syntax Database


David Knoll
 Share

Recommended Posts

I was trying to search where the verb פחד is complemented by the preposition מן.

I thought the correct query would be a Predicate Phrase containing a Predicate of the root פחד and a Complement with the Lexeme מן (Fear + From someone/something).

It returned one result in Ps 119:161. The thing is I know of another verse Ps 27:1 which opens with ממי אפחד (From + whom + fear). When I opened it I realized that it is tagged differently the מן is taken as an Adjunct.

So I thought I would search ל + מי to see if that is consistent. I noticed that in Gen 32:18 it is tagged once as a complement and once as an adjunct though they fill the same function. In other instances it is tagged as an adjunct.

So I have two questions:

1) How can I catch all the instances of an indirect object with a certain preposition in other words both Ps 119:161 and Ps 27:1?

2) Why are the two למי in Gen 32:18 tagged in different ways?

Edited by David Knoll
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was trying to search where the verb פחד is complemented by the preposition מן.

I thought the correct query would be a Predicate Phrase containing a Predicate of the root פחד and a Complement with the Lexeme מן (Fear + From someone/something).

It returned one result in Ps 119:161. The thing is I know of another verse Ps 27:1 which opens with ממי אפחד (From + whom + fear). When I opened it I realized that it is tagged differently the מן is taken as an Adjunct.

So I thought I would search ל + מי to see if that is consistent. I noticed that in Gen 32:18 it is tagged once as a complement and once as an adjunct though they fill the same function. In other instances it is tagged as an adjunct.

So I have two questions:

1) How can I catch all the instances of an indirect object with a certain preposition in other words both Ps 119:161 and Ps 27:1?

2) Why are the two למי in Gen 32:18 tagged in different ways?

I am bumping this. It turned out that this is a search I need frequently...

Edited by David Knoll
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am bumping this. It turned out that this is a search I need frequently...

 

Apologies. I did not see this post when it originally went up. I'll try to answer it by the end of the day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've now looked into this. It is an interesting test case.

 

First, the data:

From our valency lexicon-in-progress, we have this brief entry:

פחד (qal)

post-29948-013246000 1311273602_thumb.png

post-29948-076945900 1311273618_thumb.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Professor for your clear explanations.

As to me seeing different taggings it happened to me before. In both cases I am almost certain that I saw what I reported yet I cannot reproduce. I apologize. There must be something I am doing wrong when I look at the trees but I am not sure what that is.

As for the "Indirect Object" I basically agree but I thought I might get help from a fellow user and even you must agree that the term "indirect object" is more common. It doesn't matter as long as we understand each other. :rolleyes:

I think over time many of your very useful explanations and examples get buried between other forum posts. Maybe you should consider an anthology for the new users. (I print and file them)

Just to see if I got you right: I use search 2 for oblique and [search 1-Search 2] for accusative. My search for specific prepositions was correct. Right?

What about double duty accusatives?

Two last things:

1) Where can I get your valency lexicon? I love it! I hope you are going to have it published in Accordance as well.

2) What biblical books will be included in August? I may want to avert the tribulation of using your competitors :)

Once again thank you. As always the screenshots serve as a guide for future use.

Edited by David Knoll
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will add a correction to my statement on indirect objects. My colleague and verbal system expert tells me I should describe the issue thusly:

 

Clearly the indirect object does not have a place in a valency theory approach. It has to do with the mismatch of case analysis and valency analysis. Hebrew grammar does not have a specific marking of indirect objects so that valency theory with its universal categories of complement and adjunct is more useful in analyzing the syntactic relationships than with a case-inflected language in which distinctions of complement and adjunct are more frequently associated with overt morphological marking.

 

As for the other questions:

1) our valency lexicon will likely be released in Accordance, but only at the end of the project. We will be using it to improve the consistency of the whole database when a first pass is completed. It is neither complete nor ready for public use at this time.

 

2) Judges, Daniel, Ezra, Proverbs, Esther, and hopefully a few more (yet to be determined).

 

And yes, that is what I meant regarding the two searches. For how precisely to set it up, someone like David Lang or Joel Brown will have to jump in.

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...