Word division differences

Post Reply
Alan Bunning
Posts: 268
Joined: June 5th, 2011, 7:31 am
Contact:

Word division differences

Post by Alan Bunning » April 13th, 2016, 5:11 pm

I have finally given up (at least for now) on finding a consistent set of rules for governing how words should be divided as the place we have arrived seems rather random and inconsistent. Thus, I have now fallen back to my lazy man’s approach where I just follow along with whatever most people seem to be doing. Not a great approach, but now my problem is much more manageable. :D The following is a list of 24 words where modern critical texts differ on how the words are divided. Can you look at these and tell me whether you have a preference one way or another and why?
chart.png
chart.png (41.06 KiB) Viewed 829 times
0 x



Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: Word division differences

Post by Stephen Hughes » April 14th, 2016, 3:13 am

I have views on a few of them, yes, but are they necessary? Do you need to have a standard to make your modelling of the data in metadata work? Knowledge conforming to technology has been a phenomenon in itself, and especially in the early days of digitising Is this an issue of representation in the metadata or presentation in the text that you display.Iguess that there is a way to represent ambiguity in the metadata, and to retain the diversity in the data.
0 x
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)

Jonathan Robie
Posts: 3605
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: Word division differences

Post by Jonathan Robie » April 14th, 2016, 2:34 pm

Alan Bunning wrote:I have finally given up (at least for now) on finding a consistent set of rules for governing how words should be divided as the place we have arrived seems rather random and inconsistent. Thus, I have now fallen back to my lazy man’s approach where I just follow along with whatever most people seem to be doing. Not a great approach, but now my problem is much more manageable. :D
And people can use standard lexicons and morphologies, which also do "what most people are doing". So I see this as a good approach.
Alan Bunning wrote:The following is a list of 24 words where modern critical texts differ on how the words are divided. Can you look at these and tell me whether you have a preference one way or another and why?
I would probably choose some criterion based on what others are doing. For instance, where SBL and NA28 agree, do it that way, since this is most likely the spelling modern resources will use if they are based on these two editions.

But you probably need to add your own judgement for specific pairs. I would want to handle μητι-γε and μεν-ουν-γε the same way.
0 x
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/

Alan Bunning
Posts: 268
Joined: June 5th, 2011, 7:31 am
Contact:

Re: Word division differences

Post by Alan Bunning » April 14th, 2016, 4:17 pm

Stephen Hughes wrote:I have views on a few of them, yes, but are they necessary?
I would like to know your views.
Stephen Hughes wrote:Do you need to have a standard to make your modelling of the data in metadata work?
No, but I have to display them as either one or to words in every case. If there is a standard underneath that, then great, but I do have to make a choice in each case.
0 x

Alan Bunning
Posts: 268
Joined: June 5th, 2011, 7:31 am
Contact:

Re: Word division differences

Post by Alan Bunning » April 14th, 2016, 4:24 pm

Jonathan Robie wrote:I would probably choose some criterion based on what others are doing. For instance, where SBL and NA28 agree, do it that way, since this is most likely the spelling modern resources will use if they are based on these two editions.
The BYZ is "The Greek New Testament, Byzantine Text Form", by Maurice A. Robinson and William G. Pierpont which is also a modern text, but still no agreement. Apparently, there is some difference of opinion.
Jonathan Robie wrote:But you probably need to add your own judgement for specific pairs. I would want to handle μητι-γε and μεν-ουν-γε the same way.
Yes, the lack of inconsistency with things like that is what was driving me crazy. Even if you go with majority wins, what you end up with doesn't seem very logical.
0 x

Jonathan Robie
Posts: 3605
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: Word division differences

Post by Jonathan Robie » April 14th, 2016, 4:34 pm

Alan Bunning wrote:
Jonathan Robie wrote:I would probably choose some criterion based on what others are doing. For instance, where SBL and NA28 agree, do it that way, since this is most likely the spelling modern resources will use if they are based on these two editions.
The BYZ is "The Greek New Testament, Byzantine Text Form", by Maurice A. Robinson and William G. Pierpont which is also a modern text, but still no agreement. Apparently, there is some difference of opinion.
Yes, but I suspect that lexicons and such are more likely to adopt the NA28 / SBL spellings. I use BYZ, SBL, NA27, Nestle1904, and Antoniades regularly, and don't usually get frustrated with these things. I suppose the right thing for a lexicon to do is have an entry for the longest version of any of these words just in case, and have it refer to the shorter variants.
Alan Bunning wrote:
Jonathan Robie wrote:But you probably need to add your own judgement for specific pairs. I would want to handle μητι-γε and μεν-ουν-γε the same way.
Yes, the lack of inconsistency with things like that is what was driving me crazy. Even if you go with majority wins, what you end up with doesn't seem very logical.
Few mere mortals will ever be as consistent as you are, Alan ;->

Your consistency is extremely useful in this kind of work. But it's hard to be more consistent than the universe you are working in.
0 x
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/

Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: Word division differences

Post by Stephen Hughes » April 14th, 2016, 7:55 pm

Your tabulation doesn't have the option of three words. Are the three-part words ever written as three separate words?
0 x
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)

Alan Bunning
Posts: 268
Joined: June 5th, 2011, 7:31 am
Contact:

Re: Word division differences

Post by Alan Bunning » April 14th, 2016, 8:02 pm

Stephen Hughes wrote:Your tabulation doesn't have the option of three words. Are the three-part words ever written as three separate words?
Yes, in a few cases I think they are separated as 3 words.
0 x

Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: Word division differences

Post by Stephen Hughes » April 15th, 2016, 9:33 pm

I think ἐπ’ αὐτοφώρῳ needs to be considered together with its spelling variant ἐπ’ αὐτοφόρῳ. Either way a set phrase used at law.

The word(s) ἀνὰ μέσον is just one of a number of such adverbial constructions of the form preposition + the appropriate form of μέσον (neut.). One thing is that is similar to the subtlety of meaning (or the appropriateness of usage) that we see for prepositions with πᾶν. Another thing is that ἀνά is (almost) unproductive - only used conventionally as time goes by.
0 x
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)

Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: Word division differences

Post by Stephen Hughes » April 18th, 2016, 10:31 pm

Are the sum of the parts ever greater than a meaning or function in the dialogue that could be constructed from the parts?

I mean that both as a question about the meaning, and as a question aboutdiscourse markers.

I think that if somebody would not be able to understand the full meaning from adding up the parts, then there is grounds for not separating them (regardless of how they are written).

I don't think that uniformity or conformity to a single standard is necessary. We don't find it either in the mass of manuscripts with many variants that you have collated, our even in some small details and facts of the three Gospels. Aside from applying the algorithm, your project is about presenting the richness and diversity of the manuscript traditions.
0 x
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)

Post Reply

Return to “Syntax and Grammar”