Concordance including all the versions?

Tell us about interesting projects involving biblical Greek. Collaborative projects involving biblical Greek may use this forum for their communication - please contact jonathan.robie@ibiblio.org if you want to use this forum for your project.
Post Reply
Jonathan Robie
Posts: 3097
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: Concordance including all the versions?

Post by Jonathan Robie » January 21st, 2016, 5:38 pm

Alan Bunning wrote:I did not get a lot of feedback from round 3, so in most cases I guess I will probably have to assume that the lexical entries in BDAG allow for more declensions than originally specified.
Are there any that you particularly want feedback on? I also assume you'll get others weighing in a little more slowly.
Alan Bunning wrote:(But I would definitely like someone to comment on what σεπακοντα is supposed to be.)
I suspect this is σερακοντα. That's the reading of both Tischendorff and the New Testament Manuscript Reading Room, at any rate. Tischendorff thought it was simply missing the first syllable ("σερακοντα omissa syllaba prima"). Lyon apparently agreed with Tischendorff's transcription here. Your suggested τεσσερακοντα seems plausible.
novumtestamentu02abbogoog_0068.jpg
novumtestamentu02abbogoog_0068.jpg (183.29 KiB) Viewed 557 times

I'm looking for an image of the correct page in the original manuscript. Based on the numbering in your manuscript, I would have expected this to be on this page, but this doesn't look like the right page, and I'm having a very difficult time reading this because there are two sets of writing, one on top of the other, so it's rather confusing. Anyone here know their way around Ephraemi Rescriptus?
btv1b8470433r.JPEG
btv1b8470433r.JPEG (408.73 KiB) Viewed 557 times
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/

Alan Bunning
Posts: 218
Joined: June 5th, 2011, 7:31 am
Contact:

Re: Concordance including all the versions?

Post by Alan Bunning » January 21st, 2016, 6:14 pm

Jonathan Robie wrote:
Alan Bunning wrote:I did not get a lot of feedback from round 3, so in most cases I guess I will probably have to assume that the lexical entries in BDAG allow for more declensions than originally specified.
Are there any that you particularly want feedback on? I also assume you'll get others weighing in a little more slowly.
Alan Bunning wrote:(But I would definitely like someone to comment on what σεπακοντα is supposed to be.)
I suspect this is σερακοντα. That's the reading of both Tischendorff and the New Testament Manuscript Reading Room, at any rate. Tischendorff thought it was simply missing the first syllable ("σερακοντα omissa syllaba prima"). Lyon apparently agreed with Tischendorff's transcription here. Your suggested τεσσερακοντα seems plausible.
novumtestamentu02abbogoog_0068.jpg
I'm looking for an image of the correct page in the original manuscript. Based on the numbering in your manuscript, I would have expected this to be on this page, but this doesn't look like the right page, and I'm having a very difficult time reading this because there are two sets of writing, one on top of the other, so it's rather confusing. Anyone here know their way around Ephraemi Rescriptus?
btv1b8470433r.JPEG
Yes, that one is my typo. It should be σερακοντα. I would show you, but I don't know how to attach images.

Alan Bunning
Posts: 218
Joined: June 5th, 2011, 7:31 am
Contact:

Re: Concordance including all the versions?

Post by Alan Bunning » January 21st, 2016, 7:11 pm

Jonathan told me how to post images, so I will give this a try.
snippet1.jpg
snippet1.jpg (75.88 KiB) Viewed 539 times
I got this from http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8470433r but I don't remember which page it comes from.

Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3332
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: Concordance including all the versions?

Post by Stephen Hughes » January 22nd, 2016, 2:29 am

Jonathan Robie wrote:
Alan Bunning wrote:I did not get a lot of feedback from round 3, so in most cases I guess I will probably have to assume that the lexical entries in BDAG allow for more declensions than originally specified.
Are there any that you particularly want feedback on?
My question too.

Standard reference works portray a standardised picture of the language. The variants that you list are associated with known declensions. The Koine is a simplified language. "Classical Greek" is really "Classical Greeks". The Attic dialect dominates in the syllabus, but there is really a lot of inflectional diversity that we are not used to in Koine. On top of that, Modern Greek is also a somewhat simplified or standardised language. The dialect landscape that is masked by having a standard language of education and the media, is really quite diverse. Spelling conventions also hide differences in pronunciation.

Do you want explanations as to why they are what they are, or are you uncertain about their parsing, because they can't be hopperized? What level do you want comments addressed at?
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)

Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3332
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: Concordance including all the versions?

Post by Stephen Hughes » January 22nd, 2016, 3:42 am

Alan Bunning wrote:But I would definitely like someone to comment on what σε[ρ]ακοντα is supposed to be.
It is an intermediary step (Medieval / Byzantine period) between standard Koine τεσσεράκοντα and the Modern Greek σαράντα.
μ' is the Milesian numeral for forty. The scribe first wrote the numeral then spelt it out.

Besides the loss of the first syllable in the Hellenistic period, the evolution to the Modern Greek form was achieved by re-modelling the ending -κοντα on the ending for -ήντα / άντα as happened for fifty πεντήκοντα (Class.) > πενήντα (Mod.).
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)

Alan Bunning
Posts: 218
Joined: June 5th, 2011, 7:31 am
Contact:

Re: Concordance including all the versions?

Post by Alan Bunning » January 22nd, 2016, 9:52 am

Stephen Hughes wrote:
Jonathan Robie wrote:
Alan Bunning wrote:I did not get a lot of feedback from round 3, so in most cases I guess I will probably have to assume that the lexical entries in BDAG allow for more declensions than originally specified.
Are there any that you particularly want feedback on?
My question too.

Standard reference works portray a standardised picture of the language. The variants that you list are associated with known declensions. The Koine is a simplified language. "Classical Greek" is really "Classical Greeks". The Attic dialect dominates in the syllabus, but there is really a lot of inflectional diversity that we are not used to in Koine. On top of that, Modern Greek is also a somewhat simplified or standardised language. The dialect landscape that is masked by having a standard language of education and the media, is really quite diverse. Spelling conventions also hide differences in pronunciation.

Do you want explanations as to why they are what they are, or are you uncertain about their parsing, because they can't be hopperized? What level do you want comments addressed at?
Well for round 3, I looked at the lexical entries and they don’t seem to follow the rules, so I wondered if I don’t understand all of the rules, or if the lexical entries need to show other declensions, or if the lexical entries are fine and these are errors made by the scribes. As I am classifying these words, I want to have some level of comfort before I add an alternative declension to a lexical entry. The list of words in round 3 only appear once out of the 1.5 million words I have (with the exception of μοιχαλιας which appears twice) so I suppose and argument can be made that these are just errors. But then again, my set of words is limited to only New Testament words.

So what would probably be helpful is if you could tell me which of those words would can fit with the supplied lexical entry, and which should require an alternative declension, and which should be considered errors. Some of that may be subjective, but I would like a second opinion. I think there were one or two that I realized could fit with the supplied lexical entry after I posted it, but still wonder about the rest.

Jonathan Robie
Posts: 3097
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: Concordance including all the versions?

Post by Jonathan Robie » January 22nd, 2016, 10:42 am

Alan Bunning wrote:ενελογειτο, ελλογαται, GA-01, 6:05:13, http://cntr.t15.org/collation/0605.htm#060513
Perhaps ἐλ·λογέω?
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/

Jonathan Robie
Posts: 3097
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: Concordance including all the versions?

Post by Jonathan Robie » January 22nd, 2016, 10:43 am

εφαυμασαν, εφοβηθησαν, GA-04, 1:09:08, http://cntr.t15.org/collation/0109.htm#010908
I think this one is probably εθαυμασαν.
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/

Jonathan Robie
Posts: 3097
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: Concordance including all the versions?

Post by Jonathan Robie » January 22nd, 2016, 10:49 am

προσεως, προθεσεως, GA-04, 1:12:04, http://cntr.t15.org/collation/0112.htm#011204
Hmmm, the morphology matches προσ·εάω, which is used in Acts 27:7.
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/

Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3332
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: Concordance including all the versions?

Post by Stephen Hughes » January 23rd, 2016, 12:03 am

Alan Bunning wrote:I guess I will probably have to assume that the lexical entries in BDAG allow for more declensions than originally specified.
δερματιαν, δαλματιαν, GA-02, 16:04:10, http://cntr.t15.org/collation/1604.htm#160410
Without the final -nu this would be the plural of the diminutive of δέρμα. Here is referring to a place name. Either a mistake or a spelling variation.
διελωθησαν, διεσωθησαν, GA-032, 1:14:36, http://cntr.t15.org/collation/0114.htm#011436
Taking this as a form of διαιρέω "they were separated from him", "they were allowed to grab but stopped from clinging" has a number of problems. The simplest association is with διεσωθησαν as you have.
διερησσε, διαρρησσων, GA-05, 3:08:29, http://cntr.t15.org/collation/0308.htm#030829
The γάρ suggests that this should be a finite verb. third person singular imperfect active of διαρρήσσω, a by-form of διαρρήγνυμι.
δυναμος, δυναμενος, GA-04, 9:03:21, http://cntr.t15.org/collation/0903.htm#090321
Perhaps this was written in the belief that it was an adjective. (Perhaps by taking the ending off δύναμις and then working from the stem). The actual form of the adjective is δυναμικός.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest