View Full Version : Morphology
01-05-2005, 04:47 AM
I wonder which is the degree of reliability of WTM Morphology and BLM
Morphology. Has the grammatical analysis of each word been carried out by
electronic instruments, or is it a man-made work?
For instance, in greek Psalm 9:38 LXX (10,17 MT) prosechen to ous sou, "ous" is
considered accusative; but the context suggests that it could be nominative.
Both the forms are spelt in the same way, and I would expect a morphologic
analyser to supply all the possibilities, without choosing one itself. Such
a choice, as in this case, could be wrong.
What do you think? Am I wrong? Is the same procedure valid for the Hebrew morphology?
Dale A. Brueggemann
01-05-2005, 06:04 AM
[QUOTE=conteandrea]I wonder which is the degree of reliability of WTM Morphology and BLM Morphology. Has the grammatical analysis of each word been carried out by electronic instruments, or is it a man-made work?
Actually, both. In the case of the LXX, a computer program at UC Irvine did the raw analysis; subsequently, humans checked it all at the Center for Computer Analysis of Texts (Penn). This was in the early 80s. In the case of the Hebrew, two original sources provided the raw lexical analylsis: Monks at Mared Sous in Belgium, and a computer program from the U. Michigan. Then then under Al Groves at Westminister Seminary (Philadelphia), a program compared the two sources, giving the human the option of selecting whichever was correct or replacing it with the correct analysis. Both of these were done in the early to mid 80s and continue to be improved. I was involved in both of those cases, so I failed to detect some errors, and probably managed to introduce my share of same.
Of course, this analysis continues to improve through ongoing editorial review, often prompted by comments such as your own suggestion about Ps 9:38.
[QUOTE=conteandrea]For instance, in greek Psalm 9:38 LXX (10,17 MT) prosechen to ous sou, "ous" is considered accusative; but the context suggests that it could be nominative. Both the forms are spelt in the same way, and I would expect a morphologic analyser to supply all the possibilities, without choosing one itself. Such a choice, as in this case, could be wrong.
You could be right, but the accusative would make a closer translation of the Hebrew. But you can report that to BibleWorks as a part of the effort to continue improving the database.
01-05-2005, 07:48 AM
>You could be right, but the accusative would make a closer translation of the >Hebrew.
I have thought... but it seems strange. The Hebrew however has the 2nd person, the Greek the third one.
If “ous” is accusative, how etoimasia is connected to it?
It becomes: "The Lord has heard the desire of the poor, the preparation of their heart; he has inclined your ear”? “Sou” should be corrected “autou”, as in Rahlf’s apparate, I think.
The new Pietersma’s translation has: “Your ear inclined to the readiness of their heart, to do yustice....”. It seems understood as nominative
Forgive me for my English; I am Italian!
>But you can report that to BibleWorks as a part of the effort to continue >improving the database
01-05-2005, 10:14 AM
In some places where there has been a lot of debate, they do provide an either/or morphology. Look for instance at John 5:39. The same form is both imperative or imperfect, and while usually context determines which is most likely, this one still causes a lot of debate and so both forms are given here.
The real problem with this one is the translation in Greek of the Hebrew. The Greek has completely changed this sentence so that it's more confusing.
In Hebrew both verbs are second person singular and Lord is vocative. In Greek both verbs are 3rd person singular and Lord is nominative. But even though both are third singular, the pronoun "your" is used which is rather awkward (considering the Hebrew). If the great scribes wanted to make the changes wholesale it should have been "The Lord has heard...he inclined HIS ear" but they didn't do that.
In any event, I can still see this specific word as accusative but your point that it can just as well be taken with a nominative may be strong enough that both should be given. Evidently the people in Greek had some trouble with this idiom, or it comes out awkwardly to us, see also Jer 7:24, 26 for places where this word also looks rather nominative, but Dan 9:18 where it's definitely accusative....
MA Classsics Student Washington University
MDiv Student Concordia Seminary
01-05-2005, 10:42 AM
Hi BW Users,
Just a short correction to something said in this thread about these two morphologies. Both have been hand checked word by word with "human hands". The electronic origins back in the 80s is no longer an issue. The WTM work was done at Westminster Theological Seminary by Alan Groves and Dale Wheeler with some input by Todd Beall (the latter two at Multnomah and Capital Bible Seminary, respectvely). The BLM in BibleWorks was a thorough correction (6-7 man years) of the original electronic CATTS text (Bob Kraft) done by Alletti and Gieniusz at the Pontifical Biblical Institute in collaboration with Mike Bushell at BibleWorks (me). In databases as large as these there are bound to be issues left, but on they whole they are very reliable. There is nothing better avaliable.
Hope this helps.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2014 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.