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

Re: Concordance including all the versions?

Post by Stephen Hughes » January 31st, 2016, 6:12 am

Alan Bunning wrote:ανακεινων, ανακειμενων, GA-04, 1:22:10
Although it is possible that ἀνακινῶν (-οῦντος) could be a particple meaning "swaying too and fro", "stirred up", I don't see how that would work in the sentence. καὶ ἐπλήσθη ὁ γάμος ἀνακινῶν, would have a word order difficulty. "And it was filled, the wedding was stirred up." may be what might have been understood with the present spelling, but the following verse refers again to Εἰσελθὼν δὲ ὁ βασιλεὺς θεάσασθαι τοὺς ἀνακειμένους (the guests) εἶδεν ἐκεῖ ἄνθρωπον οὐκ ἐνδεδυμένον ἔνδυμα γάμου.
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 31st, 2016, 6:33 am

Alan Bunning wrote:ακαρτω, ακαθαρτω, GA-05, 3:08:29
While "Παρήγγειλεν γὰρ τῷ πνεύματι τῷ ἀκάρτῳ ἐξελθεῖν ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου·" means "He commanded the unshaved demon to come out of the man.", that may lead to a great deal of speculation.
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 31st, 2016, 8:25 am

Alan Bunning wrote:χαλιναγων, χαλιναγωγων, GA-04, 20:01:26
There are two possibilities here. The first is that a syllable has been omitted by some random error, and the other is that a rule of word formation has either been overlooked (in this particular instance) or was not thought valid (a change in the language - one that did not continue.

What should happen is that in most cases when a prepositon, or any number of prepositions are added to the front of ἄγειν, such as προσεπεισάγειν we use the form -αγειν, but when we want to suffix things other than prepositions, we use -αγωγεῖν, such as in χειραγωγεῖν, "lead by the hand", and ὑδραγωγεῖν "conduct water".

There is a degree more attention given to the means of leading in χαλιναγωγεῖν, than there is in ἄγειν τινα χαλινῷ, nd less on the destination or point of origin.

If that distinction between -αγειν and -αγωγεῖν were blurred either at one point of the language, or by one group of people, it would be significant, but if it were just a single individual at a single moment then it would be a mistake.

Before taking James 3:2 as a quick proof that 1:26 was an error, it could be quite normal that aorist was a longer form.

For meaning and sense, this word χαλινάγειν would need to be looked up in the dictionary under χαλιναγωγεῖν regardless of whether it was the result of a deviant derivational morphology, or it was a one-time error.
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 31st, 2016, 9:15 am

From the first list wrote:ανθρωπειν, ανθρωπινη, GA-P72, 21:02:13
...
απτυξας, αναπτυξας, GA-05, 3:04:17
αυλαιαι, λυχνιαι, GA-02, 27:11:04
I think that the first two are scribal errors or spelling mistakes.

αυλαιαι is probably a different word, either doors, curtains or (even) perhaps something else. It doesn't seem to be a misspelling, and I feel that it would be understood as what it is, rather than what it should have been.

I think that finishes what I will say about List 1.

My final comment from list 2 is that if you didn't like what was offered for εμμενως, try treating it as εμμενων, and see where that leads you.
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 31st, 2016, 11:55 pm

Alan Bunning wrote:αντιοχεαν, αντιοχευς, GA-04, 05:06:05, http://cntr.t15.org/collation/0506.htm#050605
A double accusative in a thrid declension noun is not overly remarkable.
Alan Bunning wrote:απολλωνιδα, απολλωνια, GA-05, 05:17:01, http://cntr.t15.org/collation/0517.htm#051701
Ἀπολλωνίς (-ίδος, ἡ) is a woman's name. Ἀπολλωνία is the name of a number of cities. There are a number of ways one could speculate about what was meant by this name here. One of them is that there is mention of an ancient city near Thyateira named Apollonis, but I can't find that.
Alan Bunning wrote:χρυσαια, χρυσους, GA-01, 27:09:20, http://cntr.t15.org/collation/2709.htm#270920
The contracted form is χρυσᾶ. The uncontracted form is χρυσέα. The uncontracted form with spelling according to the pronunciation is χρυσαῖα. I'm not exactly sure about the time frame of adjectives in -αῖος and -εῖος. It is possible that χρυσαῖος was an adjectival form derived from or related to the epic χρυσεῖος, or then again, this could be a spelling mistake.
Alan Bunning wrote:διετειας, διετης, GA-05, 01:02:16, http://cntr.t15.org/collation/0102.htm#010216
διετίας (from διετία "an interval of two years) "within the space of two years (and below καὶ κάτω)" requires the sense of a participle like γεγεννημένους or τεχθέντας.
Alan Bunning wrote:δοξεως, δοξα, GA-P40, 06:03:23, http://cntr.t15.org/collation/0603.htm#060323
The question of whether a word with a different declesnsion is a different word or a different declension of the same word is probably decided by whether the word is used differently and / or has a different meaning. LSJ lists δόξις as being the same.
Alan Bunning wrote:ειμιωρον, ημιωριον, GA-02, 27:08:01, http://cntr.t15.org/collation/2708.htm#270801
A spelling mistake.
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 » February 2nd, 2016, 7:20 am

Stephen Hughes wrote:
Alan Bunning wrote:διετειας, διετης, GA-05, 01:02:16, http://cntr.t15.org/collation/0102.htm#010216
διετίας (from διετία "an interval of two years) "within the space of two years (and below καὶ κάτω)" requires the sense of a participle like γεγεννημένους or τεχθέντας.
I don't entirely agree with myself on this point. From another way of thinking, the genitive could be measuring the age of the children. In that case, there would be no need for the understood participle. "the children of two years (of age), and younger".

Either way it is from διετία.
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 » May 12th, 2016, 9:43 pm

How did you classify γενεχλιος in Mark 6:21 05 D? BDAG lemmatises it as γενέθλιος.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)

Alan Bunning
Posts: 222
Joined: June 5th, 2011, 7:31 am
Contact:

Re: Concordance including all the versions?

Post by Alan Bunning » May 12th, 2016, 10:17 pm

Stephen Hughes wrote:How did you classify γενεχλιος in Mark 6:21 05 D? BDAG lemma times it as γενέθλιος.
What the computer put there through some process is clearly wrong, so I don't have an answer for that one right now. In fact, there will be hundreds of mistakes that won't be corrected until I add morphological parsing. That is why I have not released that data yet.

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

Re: Concordance including all the versions?

Post by Stephen Hughes » May 12th, 2016, 11:46 pm

Alan Bunning wrote:απτυξας, αναπτυξας, GA-05, 3:04:17
The "correct" antonym for the πτύξας of verse 20 would be ἀναπτύξας as you have corrected ἀπτύξας to.

The more common word is ἀνοῖξαι. Cf. ἑλίσσειν (cf. helix "a spiral") in the strange (illogically opposite "separated like ... being rolled up") phrase in Revelation 6:14.
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 » May 13th, 2016, 7:11 am

Alan Bunning wrote:
Stephen Hughes wrote:How did you classify γενεχλιος in Mark 6:21 05 D? BDAG lemmatises it as γενέθλιος.
What the computer put there through some process is clearly wrong, so I don't have an answer for that one right now. In fact, there will be hundreds of mistakes that won't be corrected until I add morphological parsing. That is why I have not released that data yet.
I understand that you have a road to completion mapped out, but let me make a suggestion anyway.

If you did progamme in hyperlinks to (for the meantime) bank pages or hover pop-up boxes, blank save for the word that the form was lemmatised to, that might aid in the debugging phase by allowing people to stumble upon errors. Your site has an administrator email, I guess, and you can ask for feedback. You will get a Philippians 1:15-18 range of responders, but whatever the motive or tone of people finding errors in the data, you will be able to work specific corrections into this valuable resource, and be able to identify some systematic ones, like the issues with the diairesis on the upsilon.

Even the best restaurants serve rice that sometimes a small pebble in it. If your project is good enough for general consumption, that's a start. You can up the copyright usage restrictions a few notches on that part of the data-set till it is not so noticeably error-ridden.
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