PDA

View Full Version : A Question on SCM and STM



Yaku Lee
09-06-2009, 11:39 PM
The morphological analysis for the lexical item ‘Κανανίτης’ Mat 10:4 in BYZ is shown in the Analysis Window as “Κανανίτης, noun nominative masculine singular from Κανανίτης.”




But the morphological analysis of the same lexical item in SCR and STE is shown as “Κανανίτης, noun nominative masculine singular from Καναναῖος.”




BYM recognizes Κανανίτης but naturally does not recognize Καναναῖος. However, SCM and STM strangely does not recognize their own textual lexical item Κανανίτης, but instead recognize only Καναναῖος. Is something wrong with the morphological analysis of both SCM and STM?




BDAG lists both lexical items separately with separate lexical definitions. It only says that one is a “variant reading” of the other, or that one is replaced for the other in “numerous mss.” So Καναναῖοςand Κανανίτης cannot be the same lexical item.


Regards.

wie
09-07-2009, 03:40 AM
AFAIK the morphologies of these "lesser" Greek versions are automatically generated only and not perfectly reliable.

Report errors to the support team.

MBushell
09-07-2009, 01:48 PM
The morphologies for STM and SCM were not generated electronically. They are recoded version of the Maurice Robinson databases (recoded to match the BW scheme). However, his database doesn't have lemmas, just Strong's codes. The lemmas were generated electronically from Strong's number and comparison with other databases and lexicons to standardize spelling. This works 99.9% of the time but is not foolproof. Many of the Strong's lemmas do not occur in the lexicons or occur with different spellings.

Mike

bkMitchell
09-07-2009, 02:05 PM
AFAIK the morphologies of these "lesser" Greek versions are automatically generated only and not perfectly reliable.
Report errors to the support team.

I am not a New Testament text critic, but I am curious.
What do you mean by 'lesser Greek' versions?
And, by what criteria does one go about deciding
which texts editions/data bases are greater or lesser?

wie
09-07-2009, 03:44 PM
With 'lesser Greek' versions I meant versions not so important for a variety of reasons, e.g. from a textcritical point of view or from the number of users requesting a version. Most of the users are interested in the NA/UBS and in Robinson's Majority text, perhaps some in Westcott-Hort. Only few are interested in the different Textus receptus versions.

ISalzman
09-08-2009, 10:38 PM
I am not a New Testament text critic, but I am curious.
What do you mean by 'lesser Greek' versions?
And, by what criteria does one go about deciding
which texts editions/data bases are greater or lesser?

Hey bk, what does "tistamkhu" mean in your Hebrew quote? I'm feeling a little too tired and a little too lazy now to go to Milon Morfix!

Adelphos
09-08-2009, 11:04 PM
Hey bk, what does "tistamkhu" mean in your Hebrew quote? I'm feeling a little too tired and a little too lazy now to go to Milon Morfix!

I'm not bk, but it means to rest on, rely on, trust in.

ISalzman
09-08-2009, 11:12 PM
I'm not bk, but it means to rest on, rely on, trust in.

Thanks. What's the verbal root? I wonder if it's from תמך
(see Exodus 17:12.)?

Adelphos
09-08-2009, 11:35 PM
Thanks. What's the verbal root? I wonder if it's from תמך
(see Exodus 17:12.)?

I believe the root is !ms

ISalzman
09-08-2009, 11:46 PM
I believe the root is !ms

That doesn't sound (or look) accurate. I'll have to verify that in the morning. I am wamped and am going to hit the sack pretty soon. Thanks for the suggestion though.

Adelphos
09-08-2009, 11:51 PM
That doesn't sound (or look) accurate. I'll have to verify that in the morning. I am wamped and am going to hit the sack pretty soon. Thanks for the suggestion though.

Let me know. I'm going strictly on memory. Your root could be correct. Deriving grammatical legends isn't my strong suit, albeit I can usually derive the root in Hebrew. But my learning Hebrew was more learning to speak than write, so I go by sounds more than anything else.

ISalzman
09-09-2009, 10:37 AM
Let me know. I'm going strictly on memory. Your root could be correct. Deriving grammatical legends isn't my strong suit, albeit I can usually derive the root in Hebrew. But my learning Hebrew was more learning to speak than write, so I go by sounds more than anything else.

I just looked it up. The root is סָמַך

And it means: "to depend on, to rely on, to trust ; (literary) to lean on, to rest on ; (literary) to strengthen, to support."

- (http://milon.morfix.co.il/Default.aspx)

You were close, but your final consonant was a final nun. The root 'Samak' ends with a kaph.

Adelphos
09-09-2009, 10:41 AM
You were close, but your final consonant was a final nun. The root 'Samak' ends with a kaph.


I meant to write a kaph. After all these years, I am still not used to the BW Hebrew keyboard. I use the Israeli keyboard, and although you can use that in BW, I have found that it conflicts with certain elements, or at least it used to. I haven't tried it in a while.

Anyway, thanks for confirming that.

ISalzman
09-09-2009, 10:54 AM
I meant to write a kaph. After all these years, I am still not used to the BW Hebrew keyboard. I use the Israeli keyboard, and although you can use that in BW, I have found that it conflicts with certain elements, or at least it used to. I haven't tried it in a while.

Anyway, thanks for confirming that.


No problem. And you're welcome.

bkMitchell
09-09-2009, 12:20 PM
Adelphos'

definition was right and in the quote/saying;
תסתמכו
is a Hithpael in imperfect form. It is found in the Bible here:

Isaiah 26:3 יֵצֶר סָמוּךְ תִּצֹּר שָׁלוֹם שָׁלוֹם כִּי בְךָ בָּטוּחַ׃
Psalm 112:8 סָמוּךְ לִבּוֹ לֹא יִירָא עַד אֲשֶׁר־יִרְאֶה בְצָרָיו׃


But, ISalzman's guess תָּמֹךְ came close and in psalm 17:5 it has a similar meaning. However, you'd still have to account for the samekh.


Grace and Peace,
bkMitchell

ISalzman
09-09-2009, 02:27 PM
Adelphos'

definition was right and in the quote/saying;
תסתמכו
is a Hithpael in imperfect form. It is found in the Bible here:

Isaiah 26:3 יֵצֶר סָמוּךְ תִּצֹּר שָׁלוֹם שָׁלוֹם כִּי בְךָ בָּטוּחַ׃
Psalm 112:8 סָמוּךְ לִבּוֹ לֹא יִירָא עַד אֲשֶׁר־יִרְאֶה בְצָרָיו׃


But, ISalzman's guess תָּמֹךְ came close and in psalm 17:5 it has a similar meaning. However, you'd still have to account for the samekh.


Grace and Peace,
bkMitchell


What threw me was the tav. But what the Hithpael so often does is transpose the tav belonging to the Hithpael and the first consonant of the verbal root, as it did in this instance. All's well that ends well. Thanks bk.

Irving

bkMitchell
09-09-2009, 09:56 PM
With 'lesser Greek' versions I meant versions not so important for a variety of reasons, e.g. from a textcritical point of view or from the number of users requesting a version. Most of the users are interested in the NA/UBS and in Robinson's Majority text, perhaps some in Westcott-Hort. Only few are interested in the different Textus receptus versions.

Thanks, for clarifying.