Morph Search Help Needed - David? - Rob? - Anybody?

Page 1 of 2 (23 items) 1 2 Next >
This post has 22 Replies | 2 Followers

Posts 715
Chris Elford | Forum Activity | Posted: Sat, Nov 14 2009 9:23 AM

I am trying to search all occurences of the use of nouns without the definite article as the predicate noun in a "sentence" with a noun with the definite article and the verb ειμι as in John 1:1 θεος ην ο λογος or 1 John 4:16 ο θεοσ αγαπη εστιν

The nouns are always in the nominative

ειμι is always finite

order varies greatly

one noun has an article, one does not

I've tried many things but can't isolate. Many of my attempts don't get John 1:1 or get the article and the noun. I think I have to search just for the noun without the article and ειμι otherwise there is no distinction. Then I can sort through them and see if there is also an articular noun.

To start with I've tried to just find nominative nouns without an article. Start small and then add. I can't get that to work.

With NA27 with Gramcord morphology in John (I've also tried NA27 with Logos morphology) I've tried:

  1. @N??N ANDNOT @A??N but that only gets anarthrous nouns where there is no nominative article in the verse (157 results)
  2. @N??N ANDNOT AFTER 1 word @A??N - that gets John 1:1 but gets all the nominative nouns and articles (1704 results in just John) - gets what I want but everything else as well - = @N??N AND @N??N - so can I combine ANDNOT and AFTER/BEFORE/NEAR?
  3. @N??N ANDNOT (@A??N BEFORE 1 word @N??N) - that doesn't get Jn 1:1 - similar to #1 (244 results) but gets some verses where there is an article in the verse but occurs more than 1 word away from the noun but not Jn 1:1 - because there are occurances of noun & article beside each other in that verse??? How then do you isolate words within a verse from the rest of the verse?
  4. @N??N ANDNOT (@N??N AFTER 1 word @A??N) - as expected, same as #3

At this point I'm stumped.

Any help?

Thanks,

Chris

Posts 16413
Dave Hooton | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Nov 14 2009 1:34 PM

Give me a few hours, but it sounds little different than your other request!

Dave
===

Windows PC, Android phone

Posts 715
Chris Elford | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Nov 14 2009 1:51 PM

Dave Hooton:

Give me a few hours, but it sounds little different than your other request!

I'll gladly give you time.

It isn't really different, but I've continued to try and refined what I have done. I at least got to understand brackets, I think. I also clarified my memory that this isn't Granville Sharp's rule--that's the use of και and the omission of one article.

I was worried that the other question was lost in the forum as it was attached to someone else's query and I hadn't seen a response.

I wasn't trying to bug you. You guys are way ahead of me and are very helpful.

I'll wait -- albeit with bated breath.

Thanks, Dave.

 

Posts 16413
Dave Hooton | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Nov 14 2009 8:41 PM

First I'll refer you to my earlier solution http://community.logos.com/forums/p/4575/37916.aspx#37916

It's obvious that the final query excludes at least two valid results:

  • 1 Jn 4.16 because there are two @NN together, foiling the proximity checks
  • Jn 1.1 because there is an earlier construction matching the ANDNOT condition

and I could not formulate a satisfactory text query to work around these cases. So we are left with the basic query (@NN BEFORE 3 words lemma:εμί) producing 1216 hits/532 verses which is loaded with articular(?) cases!

So we go to Syntax Search (below) and a quick examination shows we have the two verses above but some results from the text query are excluded because of the "gap" phenomenon which plagues all Syntax implementations! The determiner is excluded because that caters for the definite article.

I leave you to experiment further!


Dave
===

Windows PC, Android phone

Posts 715
Chris Elford | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Nov 14 2009 9:57 PM

Dave,

Thanks for looking at this twice. I missed your earlier answer, I'm sorry. I hadn't set it to email me and I didn't twig to the title after all the others I've looked at.

I can see that my basic understanding of the morph search is coming along. I'm still wrestling with specifics of the spacing, etc. Your explanation above is clear.

I'm not used to the terms and concepts in the Syntax search, although your example on my question helps me greatly. I'll have to "go to school" on the terms and concepts by reading through the glossaries and handbooks from Lexham, Andersen Forbes, etc. I took my languages 25 years ago and we didn't use the linguistic approach. I've been able to keep my languages up, fairly well, but haven't kept up with the new approaches.

I'm not sure if the changes are conceptual or more terminological. I'll probably be back asking questions again and again.

I wanted to add the presence of ειμι next. That will eliminate some of the extraneous hits, but won't get the ones that are already not included.

I may have to do it the old fashioned way: looking through them manually. But at least the computer can eliminate some.

Thanks again.

Chris

Posts 16413
Dave Hooton | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Nov 14 2009 10:30 PM

Chris Elford:
I wanted to add the presence of ειμι next.

I don't understand this comment!

Chris Elford:

I may have to do it the old fashioned way: looking through them manually. But at least the computer can eliminate some.

Sadly, but I have found that one cannot rely upon one Search method - Syntax search needs to be supplemented by text search and vice-versa. Text produces too many results, and Syntax produces too few (especially if you don't understand all its functions).  What I really miss is the Verse List because I could rapidly find the verses that were missing from each set of results and thus reduce the manual effort.

 

Dave
===

Windows PC, Android phone

Posts 715
Chris Elford | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Nov 14 2009 10:55 PM

Dave Hooton:

Chris Elford:
I wanted to add the presence of ειμι next.

I don't understand this comment!

What I mean is that the search I asked about (this time) was just the first step I took in trying to identify instances of the use of anarthrous nouns and the verb ειμι. I figured I was complicating things to put the verb in there right away. Since I couldn't get the search to identify the anarthrous nouns reliably I didn't go any further. That comment was to say that if I do add a requirement for ειμι to be present or near  to the search, it will reduce the number of hits because not all the hits you got will have ειμι present.

Reducing the number of hits ought to make the manual part of the search easier. Your desire to have verse lists back, would also help, I agree.

I want to be able to demonstrate that "the Word was God" is the correct translation in Jn 1:1, by doing some basic research rather than just relying on the grammars -- JW's don't listen to grammars, but they may listen, sometimes, to hard factual research - what I'd really like to see is if they are consistent in their mistranslation or not, because, if they put the definite article in in some places then they'll have a harder time arguing that "the Word was a god" is the correct translation in this case. I also tho't this would be a good learning exercise in learning how to use the search features. So, far the latter has proven true even if the former remains to be seen.

I think I'm getting too tired to make sense anymore. If you still don't understand I'll try again after a good night's sleep. (Last night I was working morph search terms in my head for way too long to have a good night's sleep.)

Thanks again for your help.

Chris

Posts 16413
Dave Hooton | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Nov 15 2009 4:02 AM

Chris Elford:
That comment was to say that if I do add a requirement for ειμι to be present or near  to the search, it will reduce the number of hits because not all the hits you got will have ειμι present.

My solution was to include ειμι as it didn't distract (me) from the anarthrous issue. I had tried an alternative but it failed miserably in L4 (BUG report coming up). I solved it easily in L3  with a Greek Morph Search (Logos morphology)  

~[=D???] BEFORE 3 chars [=NN??] BEFORE 3 words [ειμι=]

~ excludes Articles [=D] from appearing immediately before the Noun ie. anything but the definite article may be there!

The control search was [=NN??] BEFORE 3 words [ειμι=] and a Verse List easily gave me the differences. To the anarthrous search I have to add:-

Matthew 12:8

Matthew 27:6

Luke 5:8

Luke 16:19

Luke 18:3

Luke 20:38

Acts 8:1

Romans 1:9

Romans 6:17

1 Corinthians 12:4

2 Corinthians 11:23

Philippians 2:13

1 Timothy 3:12

2 Timothy 4:11

1 John 4:18

Not bad eh?  L4 doesn't come out of this very well at all, because I could replicate the search in Graphical Query and with an alternate Morph Search

([=N???], [=J????], [=B?], [=C??], [=X?], [=I], [=T?], [=P], [=R??????], [=V???????]) BEFORE 3 chars [=NN??] BEFORE 3 words [ειμι=]

where I list all parts of speech EXCEPT the Definite Article!

 

Dave
===

Windows PC, Android phone

Posts 4508
Forum MVP
Robert Pavich | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Nov 15 2009 7:03 AM

Chris Elford:
I want to be able to demonstrate that "the Word was God" is the correct translation in Jn 1:1, by doing some basic research rather than just relying on the grammars -- JW's don't listen to grammars, but they may listen, sometimes, to hard factual research - what I'd really like to see is if they are consistent in their mistranslation or not, because, if they put the definite article in in some places then they'll have a harder time arguing that "the Word was a god" is the correct translation in this case. I also tho't this would be a good learning exercise in learning how to use the search features. So, far the latter has proven true even if the former remains to be seen.

 

Chris,

 

You hit the nail on the head; the question for JW's is why do you translate the word "theos" in John 1:1 differently than say, in John 1:6, 12, 13, and 18 where “theos” also has no definite Greek article,  you translate it as “God” every time?

I'm not sure that the search has to be that detailed to illustrate this bias...what do you think?

 

Additional info:

Quote: "...by asserting the anarthrous "theos" should be rendered indefinite (a god" they've imposed their own translational rule: anarthrous nouns = indefinite meaning.

But, in fact, the anarthrous "theos" appears 282 times in the New Testament! Only at 16 places as indefinite. Hence the NWT was faithful to it's own translational rule only 6% of the time!

taken from:

http://www.christiandefense.org/NWT.John%201.1_article.htm

Robert Pavich

For help go to the Wiki: http://wiki.logos.com/Table_of_Contents__

Posts 7
Alan R. Craig | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Nov 15 2009 9:55 PM

Dear Chris,

Perhaps you might want to also include in your search those clauses which have the anarthrous predicate nominative preceding the verb and subject noun (stated or implied), for this is the actual full syntax (word order) of the third clause of John 1:1.

I'd like to know of your findings: john1one@earthlink.net

Agape, Alan.

Posts 4508
Forum MVP
Robert Pavich | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Nov 16 2009 4:29 PM

Alan,

I'd like to make sure that I understand what you messaged to myself and Chris about John 1:1;

"If a person can find ANY anarthrous nominative singular nouns that have been translated "a this" or "a that" in English, then JW's are correct in their NWT translation of "a god" in John 1:1"

Have I summarized your position correctly?

Robert Pavich

For help go to the Wiki: http://wiki.logos.com/Table_of_Contents__

Posts 7
Alan R. Craig | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Nov 16 2009 4:51 PM

No.

Please read my message again.

Agape, Alan.

Posts 715
Chris Elford | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Nov 16 2009 10:08 PM

Alan R. Craig:

Dear Chris,

Perhaps you might want to also include in your search those clauses which have the anarthrous predicate nominative preceding the verb and subject noun (stated or implied), for this is the actual full syntax (word order) of the third clause of John 1:1.

I'd like to know of your findings: john1one@earthlink.net

Agape, Alan.

Alan,

I realize that is the full syntax of Jn 1:1. As I stated in my earlier post, I was starting out to leave out the presence of the verb as I had tried earlier with it and found I couldn't figure it out. So, I was trying what I thought would be an easier search. I'm still stumped as to how to do it, although I've got lots of ideas to work through in my earlier thread that Dave responded to and what he and Rob have said here. I just haven't time to do so.

Really my main goal is not to be able to refute JWs, but it is to become proficient at using the search tools in L4. I'm using this as a test case - it is probably too complicated for my level of understanding (I may try to find all the instances of God in the NIV -- that's probably my level of expertise at the moment.) I whined in the beta testing about my reason for upgrading in L3 was to be able to do some serious language study through searching, but I had not been able to master the Graphical search tool. I'm more determined to become proficient (note I have lowered my expectations of my ability) at searching in L4 as I find the tools more understandable. I'm hoping they are able to do the kind of things I want. I suspect this will invovle Syntax searches. I've got a steep learning curve to get to understand them. Hopefully, I will.

The issue of equative verbs and anarthrous nouns is something I've always been interested in, not for the sake of JW confrontations. Mormons are much more prevalent in my community and will be building a temple just half a mile from my house. I haven't met a JW in the five years I've lived here. I'm more interested in being able to dig into scripture to gain an understanding.

I'm not sure where you are coming from. Your initial page on your website doesn't help me know what position on all this you are coming from. I haven't time to investigate further. Your response to Dave is even vaguer.

If I am able to get the L4 to do the kind of search I'm trying to do, I'll post the steps I take, because I think it will help others to use this tool more effectively, not to deal with Arians in the 21st century.

Chris

Posts 4508
Forum MVP
Robert Pavich | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Nov 17 2009 1:53 AM

Chris,

I agree with you....this is a real world test case and probably too much for me also...but I"m willing to toss it around with the real pros..

Robert Pavich

For help go to the Wiki: http://wiki.logos.com/Table_of_Contents__

Posts 228
AndyTheGreek | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Nov 17 2009 3:35 AM

Robert Pavich:

Chris Elford:
I want to be able to demonstrate that "the Word was God" is the correct translation in Jn 1:1, by doing some basic research rather than just relying on the grammars -- JW's don't listen to grammars, but they may listen, sometimes, to hard factual research - what I'd really like to see is if they are consistent in their mistranslation or not, because, if they put the definite article in in some places then they'll have a harder time arguing that "the Word was a god" is the correct translation in this case. I also tho't this would be a good learning exercise in learning how to use the search features. So, far the latter has proven true even if the former remains to be seen.

 

Chris,

 

You hit the nail on the head; the question for JW's is why do you translate the word "theos" in John 1:1 differently than say, in John 1:6, 12, 13, and 18 where “theos” also has no definite Greek article,  you translate it as “God” every time?

I'm not sure that the search has to be that detailed to illustrate this bias...what do you think?

 

Additional info:

Quote: "...by asserting the anarthrous "theos" should be rendered indefinite (a god" they've imposed their own translational rule: anarthrous nouns = indefinite meaning.

But, in fact, the anarthrous "theos" appears 282 times in the New Testament! Only at 16 places as indefinite. Hence the NWT was faithful to it's own translational rule only 6% of the time!

taken from:

http://www.christiandefense.org/NWT.John%201.1_article.htm

Just to point out... Most of these anarthous "theos" are in the genitive or dative case, where they don't need the article to be definite... I believe the 'rule' applies only to anarthrous nominative predicates. At least, that's what I read in Smyth's grammar (don't have it on me so I cannot provide the full reference...)

Andy

 

Posts 16413
Dave Hooton | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Nov 17 2009 4:33 AM

Robert Pavich:
but I"m willing to toss it around

OK, here's 3 related challenges

1. How many times is God not translated by theos in the NT of the ESV?

State what the result means.  Hint use NOTEQUALS.

 

2. How many times is god preceded by the definite article in the NT of the ESV?

Quote the silly count in the search and give the common-sense count as well.

 

3. How many times is God/theos preceded by the definite article in the NT of the ESV?

 

State the query you used in each case.

 

Dave
===

Windows PC, Android phone

Posts 7
Alan R. Craig | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Nov 17 2009 5:58 AM

Hi Chris,

When it comes to Mormons, because Jesus said, "By this all men [people] will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another" (John 13:35), after quoting this scripture to them I then ask, "What can you tell me about what your 'brothers' did in Nazi Germany?'  "What stand did they take?"  "How did they show love for one another?"

Chris, on the chance that you don't know, you just might want to do a bit of research on this yourself.  Let's put it this way, the record isn't pretty.

Curiously, I have yet to meet any Mormons who, before reading the "Book of Mormon," had ever read the Bible all the way thru.

Agape, Alan.

Posts 7
Alan R. Craig | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Nov 17 2009 6:24 AM

Dear Andy,

You said by quoting:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You hit the nail on the head; the question for JW's is why do you translate the word "theos" in John 1:1 differently than say, in John 1:6, 12, 13, and 18 where “theos” also has no definite Greek article,  you translate it as “God” every time?

...

 Additional info:

Quote: "...by asserting the anarthrous "theos" should be rendered indefinite (a god" they've imposed their own translational rule: anarthrous nouns = indefinite meaning.

But, in fact, the anarthrous "theos" appears 282 times in the New Testament! Only at 16 places as indefinite. Hence the NWT was faithful to it's own translational rule only 6% of the time!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The fallacy of this argument is that it is based on an incorrect premise.

When it comes to Greek grammar, Jehovah's witnesses are not saying that  their "a god" rendering of theos within the third clause of John 1:1 was done this way only because it is "anarthrous" (without the definite article).  They present other grammatical factors (being, the complete syntax within the clause) as having been involved with influencing their decision for having done so.

Might I suggest that you return to their material(s) and, once again, search for and read the grammatical reasons they've put forth for having rendered the Greek there the way that they do.  Again, it is not simply because theos there is "anarthrous."

Thus, when it is that you frame your search (once you figure out how to do it with your software), it might be good to make sure that you are searching for the complete grammatical syntax involved, that is, the one which they put forth as one of their principle reasons for having rendered that clause the way in which they did.

Agape, Alan.

Posts 7
Alan R. Craig | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Nov 17 2009 6:31 AM

Dave Hooton:

Robert Pavich:
but I"m willing to toss it around

OK, here's 3 related challenges

1. How many times is God not translated by theos in the NT of the ESV?

State what the result means.  Hint use NOTEQUALS.

2. How many times is god preceded by the definite article in the NT of the ESV?

Quote the silly count in the search and give the common-sense count as well.

3. How many times is God/theos preceded by the definite article in the NT of the ESV?

State the query you used in each case.

Dear Dave,

For what it's worth, just so you know, when proposing a search being done in this way, then the Greek grammatical syntax (especially regarding that which is contained within the third clause of John 1:1) is not actually being considered, that is, being searched for.

On the other hand, that may not be what you're interested in anyway.

Agape, Alan.

 

Posts 4508
Forum MVP
Robert Pavich | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Dec 24 2009 9:24 AM

Alan,

I finally took the time to answer your assertions about the translators bias and John 1:1.

In a nutshell, my observation about the translator's rendering of "God' and not "a god" is that they are being consistent in their translation rules. I believe that you've overlooked something that they've taken into consideration; namely "quality" as a category.

The verses that you've sited (cherry picked) do show what you've asserted but I'd say that's beside the point. There are verses with the same construction that contradict your point.

The only understanding that is consistent across these passages is one of quality...and not "definite vs indefinite"

 

If you'd like the PDF of what I came up with please email me at rpavich at gmail dot com and I'd be happy to provide it.

 

Sorry it took so long to answer; I was waiting until Christmas break when I had time to slow down and delve into it. (after all, I'm not Mark Barnes!)

 

Bob

Robert Pavich

For help go to the Wiki: http://wiki.logos.com/Table_of_Contents__

Page 1 of 2 (23 items) 1 2 Next > | RSS