Sub-divided strongs numbers???

Semantic Range, Lexicography, and other approaches to word meaning - in general, or for particular words.

Re: Sub-divided strongs numbers???

Postby Jonathan Robie » April 26th, 2013, 10:52 am

Stephen Carlson wrote:Yes, I agree with Eeli. Different lexicons will slice and dice the meanings differently. There is no one standard.

And he's right that learning the Greek alphabet is the least of one's problems if they are serious about Greek. It occurs to me that. in the days of eight-bit computing (e.g., the 1980s). having integers for all the Greek words made computer implementations easier (e.g., no need for a Greek keyboard if the user can just type numbers), but these days we have the computing resources to handle Greek properly.


Yes, but there are still issues. The same word may be listed with different forms in lexicons, the Unicode normalization may differ even if the word looks the same to the human being, etc. So numbers are undeniably convenient in software.

Another option is to use, say, the Unicode NFC normalization of the lexical form of a word, and agree on one standard lexical form. BDAG is great, but it's not freely available. LSJ is freely available, so the Perseus lexical form might be a reasonable choice.
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
Jonathan Robie
 
Posts: 1456
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm

Re: Sub-divided strongs numbers???

Postby Stephen Carlson » April 26th, 2013, 11:16 am

Yes. Jim Tauber has some tagged NT texts (Tischendorf, WH, and SBL) with lexical forms. I wonder was standard he used.

(I'm assuming that one problem is deciding whether a form is deponent or not. Some verbs are "deponent" in the NT but in Classical Greek -- another reason to junk that concept.)
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D. (Duke)
Post-Doctoral Fellow, Faculty of Theology, Uppsala
Stephen Carlson
 
Posts: 1821
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Uppsala University

Re: Sub-divided strongs numbers???

Postby Ken M. Penner » April 26th, 2013, 12:03 pm

I agree that the Perseus LSJ would be most appropriate for standardizing lexical forms and entry numbers.
As an example, for the entry βουλέυω, with the URL http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... bouleu%2Fw
click on the XML at the bottom of the page, and you can see such goodies as entryFree id="n20598" and sense id="n20598.0" n="A" level="1" opt="n"
Ken M. Penner
St. Francis Xavier University
Ken M. Penner
 
Posts: 617
Joined: May 12th, 2011, 7:50 am
Location: Antigonish, NS, Canada

Re: Sub-divided strongs numbers???

Postby Jonathan Robie » April 26th, 2013, 12:11 pm

Stephen Carlson wrote:Yes. Jim Tauber has some tagged NT texts (Tischendorf, WH, and SBL) with lexical forms. I wonder was standard he used.


Ulrik Petersen did Tischendorf on that site. If I recall correctly, James started by normalizing forms in a machine readable Strong's, then used that for his lemmas. So it's not based on a standard. And I don't think OSIS defines a standard lexical system or set of lexemes. Perseus uses the words themselves for cross-reference, I imagine they rely on Perseus for lexical forms.

Stephen Carlson wrote:(I'm assuming that one problem is deciding whether a form is deponent or not. Some verbs are "deponent" in the NT but in Classical Greek -- another reason to junk that concept.)


Ah, if you decide to use the active 1st person singular present active indicative form of a verb, that doesn't work well for a verb that never uses that form. That's one advantage of relying on an existing lexicon for standard representations. Lexicons have already faced all of these problems. The disadvantage, of course, is that there are a few words in manuscripts that might not be in the lexicon ...
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
Jonathan Robie
 
Posts: 1456
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm

Re: Sub-divided strongs numbers???

Postby Jonathan Robie » April 26th, 2013, 12:17 pm

Ken M. Penner wrote:I agree that the Perseus LSJ would be most appropriate for standardizing lexical forms and entry numbers.
As an example, for the entry βουλέυω, with the URL http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... bouleu%2Fw
click on the XML at the bottom of the page, and you can see such goodies as entryFree id="n20598" and sense id="n20598.0" n="A" level="1" opt="n"


Yes, you could use those numbers. I notice that Perseus itself uses the words for cross reference in the URIs, instead of these numbers. Which also has advantages. I would use Unicode NFC representation ...
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
Jonathan Robie
 
Posts: 1456
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm

Previous

Return to Word Meanings

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron