Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Morphology: EIDWS vs OIDA

  1. #1

    Question Morphology: EIDW vs OIDA

    I noticed that in the BGM morphology the root is always correctly given as OIDA, but in the Robinson Byzantine text morphology (BYM) it is always given as EIDW.
    Also in the analysis window it links to Thayer IDW, Latin video.
    Is there a reason for this?
    I suggest to change BYM to OIDA.
    Last edited by wie; 03-17-2010 at 12:32 PM.
    Best wishes
    Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
    Textcritical commentary:

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2004


    Here is the beginning of the Friberg entry for the word:
    [Fri] eivdw/ VSRA--1S oi=da

    the perfect of the obsolete ei;dw (see) used as the present;

    Thayer's entry begins this way:
    [Thayer] eivdw/

    , i;dw, Latin video (Sanskrit vid, perfect veda know, vind-a-mi find, (cf. Vedas); Curtius, sec. 282), an obsolete form of the present tense, the place of which is supplied by o`ra,w. The tenses coming from eivdw/ and retained by usage form two families, of which one signifies to see, the other to know.

    So it would appear that BYM is perfectly correct in using the lemma underlying the form oi=da, even though this lemma never appears as such in the New Testament.

    The next time BW updates the Greek alias file, the Thayer entry for eivdw/ will be able to display with the other entries for oi=da.

    Mark Eddy

  3. #3


    What I meant was that it is unfortunate to have two different lemmas for the same thing.
    In BYM you have EIDW and in BGM you have OIDA.
    I stumbled over this when I wanted to search for forms of OIDA in BGT and BYZ and was wondering why I couldn't find OIDA in BYM.
    Since OIDA is the common lemma I would suggest to use OIDA in BYM also.
    Best wishes
    Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
    Textcritical commentary:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts