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

Re: Concordance including all the versions?

Post by Alan Bunning » January 23rd, 2016, 11:46 am

Stephen Hughes wrote:
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.
Yes, that is the kind of analysis I was looking for. Thanks, that is very helpful.

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 23rd, 2016, 11:52 am

Alan Bunning wrote:Yes, that is the kind of analysis I was looking for. Thanks, that is very helpful.
Stephen is doing a lot of really helpful work in this thread, isn't he!
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, 12:45 pm

Jonathan Robie wrote:
Alan Bunning wrote:Yes, that is the kind of analysis I was looking for. Thanks, that is very helpful.
Stephen is doing a lot of really helpful work in this thread, isn't he!
It takes the edge off the boredom in an otherwise vacuous mind.
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 23rd, 2016, 5:08 pm

Jonathan Robie wrote:
Alan Bunning wrote:Yes, that is the kind of analysis I was looking for. Thanks, that is very helpful.
Stephen is doing a lot of really helpful work in this thread, isn't he!
Yes, and I am thankful for Jonathan and others who have responded as well. I am hoping to bring this process to conclusion by the end of this weekend, so if you still want to weigh in on some of these words please do so. Otherwise, I am just going to make the call and a lot of them will be considered spelling errors. For those who are interested, here’s where this is going next:

1. I will refresh my transcriptions with the updates, only you won’t get to see them until I get a new website that I can update. I made about 100 changes, mostly word divisions, but there were 6-7 typos I found. This process was one of many quality control steps to check my transcription process. The fact that only 6-7 typos were found so far out of 57 million characters gives me some confidence.

2. Each word has now been identified to a lexical entry showing alternative forms, alternative spellings, misspellings, and errors. Alternative spellings allow for the rules αι = ε, οι = υ, ο = ω, ει = ι as well as some consonant substitutions, allowing for doubled consonants, etc. Misspellings are those words that go beyond these rules. Errors are mostly stray characters. The “correct” lexical form will then be identified based on its usage in the manuscripts. I already know that there are several places where every early manuscript is in agreement with how a word is spelled, and every modern critical text deviates from that. I have been very surprised at how different the orthography is compared to the middle ages Greek that I was taught. At first I was going to simply call the “correct” lexical form the form with the most word counts. But I realized that the large manuscripts (01-05) would simply skew the results to their spellings. So a better approach would be to let each manuscript “vote” as to how it thinks each word should be spelled. That, or I could let the vote occur on a word by word basis based on its column in the collation, and then tally the total votes for each word. Opinions?

3. The lexical data will then be applied to the collation and then it will be visually inspected for errors. Since Perseus identified about 2500 words, there is no guarantee that it always chose the right form. Once this is done, it should also get rid of all of those occasional alignment errors that occur in the collation. The computer used to have to guess if a word was the same or not, and now it will know if it is meant to be the same word or not.

4. One day I will eventually move on to do the morphological parsing of all of the words and finishing this process will make that process a whole lot easier.

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

Re: Concordance including all the versions?

Post by Stephen Hughes » January 24th, 2016, 2:00 am

ενεβρισαμενος, ενβριμησαμενος, GA-05, 2:01:43, http://cntr.t15.org/collation/0201.htm#020143
The form shown is plausibly from ἐμβρίθω "to press heavily", "having pressed heavily (on him)". I haven't looked into exorcism in any anthropological studies. Perhaps there is something like hard-pressing involved sometimes.
ενελογειτο, ελλογαται, GA-01, 6:05:13, http://cntr.t15.org/collation/0605.htm#060513
The form that should be giving you trouble in this verse is ἐλλογᾶτο. The two that you have listed are straightforward enough. ενελογειτο is the third person singular imperfect indicative mediopassive of ἐλλογέομαι and ελλογαται is the third person singular present indicative mediopassive of ἐλλογάομαι.
εξαπειλαν, εξαπεστειλαν, GA-05, 3:20:11, http://cntr.t15.org/collation/0320.htm#032011
εξαπειλαν would be a valid form (third person plural aorist indicative active) if there was a verb ἐξαπαιρέω that it could be from. Taking ἐξαπαιρέω as a strengthened form of ἐξαιρέω, it could mean "the did away with" (as in kill) or perhaps "removed away from the property". In that case καινόν would need to have the force of something like "again", which is perhaps the sense in Matthew 26:29 "till I drink it anew".
εξηρτηνται, εξεστη, GA-032, 2:03:21, http://cntr.t15.org/collation/0203.htm#020321
What happened to εξεσταται in this verse? Was it able to be parsed?

ἐξήρτηνται is third person plural perfect indicative mediopassive of ἐξαρτάω "be closely associated with" (which is in BDAG).
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 24th, 2016, 2:43 am

Alan Bunning wrote:2. Each word has now been identified to a lexical entry showing alternative forms, alternative spellings, misspellings, and errors. Alternative spellings allow for the rules αι = ε, οι = υ, ο = ω, ει = ι as well as some consonant substitutions, allowing for doubled consonants, etc. Misspellings are those words that go beyond these rules. Errors are mostly stray characters. The “correct” lexical form will then be identified based on its usage in the manuscripts. I already know that there are several places where every early manuscript is in agreement with how a word is spelled, and every modern critical text deviates from that. I have been very surprised at how different the orthography is compared to the middle ages Greek that I was taught. At first I was going to simply call the “correct” lexical form the form with the most word counts. But I realized that the large manuscripts (01-05) would simply skew the results to their spellings. So a better approach would be to let each manuscript “vote” as to how it thinks each word should be spelled. That, or I could let the vote occur on a word by word basis based on its column in the collation, and then tally the total votes for each word. Opinions?
Spelling is a convention that has come to be accepted. Grammars and dictionaries more or less adhere to it. If you deviate, you at least need to index to make things workable.
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 24th, 2016, 2:52 am

Alan Bunning wrote:I am hoping to bring this process to conclusion by the end of this weekend, so if you still want to weigh in on some of these words please do so. Otherwise, I am just going to make the call and a lot of them will be considered spelling errors.
That is a tight schedule. The rest of the weekend is more-or-less "family time" for me. I won't have time for (m)any more comments within your time constraints. Can you accept comments later and rework those that may not be spelling mistakes?
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 24th, 2016, 8:48 am

Stephen Hughes wrote:
Alan Bunning wrote:I am hoping to bring this process to conclusion by the end of this weekend, so if you still want to weigh in on some of these words please do so. Otherwise, I am just going to make the call and a lot of them will be considered spelling errors.
That is a tight schedule. The rest of the weekend is more-or-less "family time" for me. I won't have time for (m)any more comments within your time constraints. Can you accept comments later and rework those that may not be spelling mistakes?
Yes, I will rework them in.

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 24th, 2016, 9:46 am

Stephen Hughes wrote:
Alan Bunning wrote:2. Each word has now been identified to a lexical entry showing alternative forms, alternative spellings, misspellings, and errors. Alternative spellings allow for the rules αι = ε, οι = υ, ο = ω, ει = ι as well as some consonant substitutions, allowing for doubled consonants, etc. Misspellings are those words that go beyond these rules. Errors are mostly stray characters. The “correct” lexical form will then be identified based on its usage in the manuscripts. I already know that there are several places where every early manuscript is in agreement with how a word is spelled, and every modern critical text deviates from that. I have been very surprised at how different the orthography is compared to the middle ages Greek that I was taught. At first I was going to simply call the “correct” lexical form the form with the most word counts. But I realized that the large manuscripts (01-05) would simply skew the results to their spellings. So a better approach would be to let each manuscript “vote” as to how it thinks each word should be spelled. That, or I could let the vote occur on a word by word basis based on its column in the collation, and then tally the total votes for each word. Opinions?
Spelling is a convention that has come to be accepted. Grammars and dictionaries more or less adhere to it. If you deviate, you at least need to index to make things workable.
I agree. But if this is something people will be querying, you want to make it easy to find all uses of a given word, even though there are variant spellings, over a broad period of time. I think the best way to do that would be to provide the lemma and a normalized "dictionary" spelling in metadata, while maintaining the spelling of the given manuscript in the text per se:

Code: Select all

<word lemma="Ἰωάννης"  normalized="Ἰωάννης">ιωανηϲ</word>
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 24th, 2016, 9:53 am

Stephen Hughes wrote:[quote="]εξηρτηνται, εξεστη, GA-032, 2:03:21, http://cntr.t15.org/collation/0203.htm#020321
What happened to εξεσταται in this verse? Was it able to be parsed?[/quote][/quote]
I assumed it was some form of ἐξίστημι.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest