If you're familiar with the OpenText.org Greek Syntactic data, then this article about OpenText.org's handling of prepositions from a systemic functional linguistics (SFL) perspective may be useful or helpful to you: http://bagl.org/files/volume6/BAGL_6-2_Porter.pdf
Thank you, Rick!
[Y]
I read it. Seems like a lot of changes to their word groups at least since 2006. Too bad we will likely never see these changes in the logos database.
If you're familiar with the OpenText.org Greek Syntactic data, then this article about OpenText.org's handling of prepositions from a systemic functional linguistics (SFL) perspective may be useful or helpful to you: http://bagl.org/files/volume6/BAGL_6-2_Porter.pdf I read it. Seems like a lot of changes to their word groups at least since 2006. Too bad we will likely never see these changes in the logos database.
I don't think the article itself purports to (directly) document OpenText.org; I believe the discussion on groups in the article is about SFL and intention and not about current state of annotation in OpenText.org. In speaking with some OpenText.org folks late last year, it was clear they've done very little work on the data itself in the past 10 years, though I believe they now desire to do further work on the analysis.
My description ("… about OpenText.org's handling of prepositions") took too many liberties. There is cross-pollination here, but the article is at its core about describing prepositions in an SFL framework; they use OpenText.org labels in that discussion. There is deep overlap, but not direct correspondence.
If you're familiar with the OpenText.org Greek Syntactic data, then this article about OpenText.org's handling of prepositions from a systemic functional linguistics (SFL) perspective may be useful or helpful to you: http://bagl.org/files/volume6/BAGL_6-2_Porter.pdf I read it. Seems like a lot of changes to their word groups at least since 2006. Too bad we will likely never see these changes in the logos database. I don't think the article itself purports to (directly) document OpenText.org; I believe the discussion on groups in the article is about SFL and intention and not about current state of annotation in OpenText.org. In speaking with some OpenText.org folks late last year, it was clear they've done very little work on the data itself in the past 10 years, though I believe they now desire to do further work on the analysis. My description ("… about OpenText.org's handling of prepositions") took too many liberties. There is cross-pollination here, but the article is at its core about describing prepositions in an SFL framework; they use OpenText.org labels in that discussion. There is deep overlap, but not direct correspondence.
I hear ya. But, I think that some things in the article show that (at least he has...and likely Chris Land in light of footnote 1) there has been a stance taken with reference to PP's being relators. Which in the present database they only are sometimes (it seems when the are nested in a nominal group). Also, on page 25 he makes a parenthetical statement about new language being used for Opentext (quality vs. adjectival).
Some things seriously point to some reworking of some of their framework.
Thanks for sharing the article.
Available Now
Build your biblical library with a new trusted commentary or resource every month. Yours to keep forever.
