)Et/)et- I or II in Micah 5.14 [15 in EVV]: morphological tagging and lexical linkage Qs

Just curious (hesitantly, as that often “kills the cat”) about how certain morphological tags get assigned in logos.

Very soon beginning students of biblical Hebrew are introduced to the possible confusion of )Et [or )et-] 1, direct object marker[D.O.M.]/often left untranslated, sometimes considered an emphatic particle and )Et [or )et-] 2, preposition, “with, against, etc.” [That ambiguity is resolved sometimes with a suffixed pronoun and distinct vocalization.]

In Micah 5.14 [15 in EVV], my initial impulse, from the common word order [VincludingS-O-prep ph] and taking nAqAm, “(a)vengeance/vindication” as the D.O., was to read et-) 2, preposition, “with/against (the nations).”

Before noticing that the reverse interlinear [ri] morphology and many resources in my logos library likewise did so, I read Waltke's Micah commentary where he takes it as an emphatic [D.O.M.] particle, )et- 1, and referenced his Intro to BH Syntax to that effect (albeit translating as “against,” based on understanding the V + first O as idiomatic for “I-will-avenge-my-sovereignty”).

I thought perhaps I might find similar syntax cited in some of my lexicons via the Exeg. Guide [EG] (and did in Dict. of Classical Hebrew/DCH). As to my Qs, the EG initially lists both options for this word in this verse.

But it also lists the meaning as “with,” )et- 2, for most of my resources, even though in most of those Micah 5.14[15] is not listed under that section (or under either) in those lexicons.

Q#1: How did logos come up with that assignation if this verse is not cited there in those resources? Did it simply reproduce the ri morphology tag if the books do not specifically cite this verse under either 1 or 2?

Q#2. For the Dict. Of Classical Hebrew [DCH], EG assigns )et- 1 [I] “object marker” [and similarly for the abridged Concise Dict. Of Classical Hebrew], despite DCH specifically listing Mic 5.14 under )et- 2 [II]? How is this an accurate representation of those resources and how did logos make that assignation, even contrary to the ri morphology tag as well?

"Curiouser and curiouser."

Btw: EG also erroneously links )et- to )at “you” (2fs) personal pronoun in Pelt, Miles V. Van. Biblical Hebrew: A Compact Guide.Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012, i.e., linking to the entry below )Et/)et- 1, D.O.M. [ )Et/)et- 2 "with" is somewhat awkwardly (as less frequent in BH) listed in turn above that line in that compact guide.]

Find more posts tagged with

Resources

Desktop App

Accepted answers

All comments

Jimmy Parks

Thank you for our questions and interaction.
Logos both generates our own internal morphological database and employs 3rd party morphologies. Most Hebrew Bibles use Logos morphological Database, but you can purchase WEVU, Anderson-Forbes, SESB, and Westminster as well. Morph searches can be specified to the specific morph database if you own HB resources with those morph databases. For the most part the Logos morphology will follow HALOT in lemmatization, but our own determination over the years has been used to make corrections to syntactic concerns like the one initiating this question.
For your second question and the Exegetical Guide, The different morphologies provide multiple interpretations.

The links to specific resources are not a collation of those different morphologies though. Those links use the Logos in house morphology, and we tag the (אֵת) in Micah 5:14 as (אֵת II) which is the preposition.
I hope that answers your question.
I also see the poor hyperlink in BBH:G. I'll report that and try to get it sorted out.

Don Parker

TY for the response. I have a couple of your resources, so I am humbled.

Apparently, though, my Qs were not expressed clearly enough for you to reply to them directly (even though the thread specifies "lexical linkage Qs"); or maybe you just wanted to add some ancillary info to help other users (?).

So it seems your reply to Q#1 is that logos supplies its morphological DB for the ri morphology. You then provide additional comment related to the initial line(s)/morphological heading under a word-form in the word by word section of EG [re. the availability of purchasing different morphologies so that they will appear there]. However, both my Qs are directly tied to the lexical linkages in the word by word section of the EG.

My Q#2 was, to be clearer, about the glosses [which derive from morphological tagging] ascribed to specific lexical resources ("lexical linkage"). I was wondering how logos assigned a specific gloss to a specific lexicon:
(a) if that lexicon does not specifically list the verse under either option;
and, (b) in particular, why such a logos gloss might be assigned in direct contradiction to a specified lexicon "[)et- 1 [I] “object marker” [and similarly for the abridged Concise Dict. Of Classical Hebrew], despite DCH specifically listing Mic 5.14 under )et- 2 [II]," as well as counter to the logos DB morphology.
Your response, "Those links use the Logos in house morphology, and we tag the (אֵת) in Micah 5:14as (אֵת II) which is the preposition," may indeed address situation (a) but manifestly that is not the case for (b) in the EG section for this verse and word-form where glosses are assigned to these lexica.

PS. I concur that it would be good to change the poor hyperlink to BBH:G so that an unrelated "you" doesn't appear there in the EG in regard to Mic 5.14 [15 EVV] . No need to direct logos users down another rabbit hole, eh?

Don Parker

Someone (M.J., perhaps?) wisely admonished me to understand what Logos was representing FIRST and then SECOND to evaluate whether that representation was suitable/conducive to my purposes.

That's what I am trying to do with the lexical linkages when Logos assigns a gloss to lexical resources.

There are 3 such options given for this biblical Hebrew [BH] word, under the word-by-word (sub-)section of the EG ,, for the lexical resources in my library; i.e., counting NO gloss/empty as a NULL entry, besides “with”/prep. and “object marker”/once as “not translated.”

[Mr./Dr.? Parks also sees that a 4th entry “you” is merely an incorrect hyperlink (likely human error? tagging a BH word directly under both entries in an aleph-beth listing of common biblical Hebrew words). This observation, however, is not completely unrelated to the general process of attempting to understand what Logos is representing and then evaluating it's usefulness for my purposes: My immediate impression/hypothesis/laugh from the “you” gloss for the BH word in the verse was that Logos might be (mis)-reading an unpointed Hebrew text! Only by consulting the actual link in that resource could I see that the Logos hyperlink was misplaced for an above-line entry; or two lines above, to go with the Logos DB morphology.]

The underlying question is: How does Logos make the assignment of any of the three legitimate options/glosses for each of my lexical resources?

I am willing to posit, and accept, for the null option, that there is some kind of tagging element missing in those lexical resources and so Logos doesn't populate the gloss field in the EG word-by-word (sub-)section for those.

I would have been willing to accept that Logos populates the gloss field as “with”/prep. from the Logos morphological DB (and in the RI apparently) for lexical resources that do not specifically cite this verse/use of the BH word (i.e., these lexicons do not opine between the two primary options for it), assuming these lexicons do have some otherwise required Logos tagging; this is my (mis-?)reading of Mr./Dr.? Parks' comment. But that process/explanation doesn't fit some of the actual gloss entries.

As mentioned, for DCH and CDCH, even when these resources agree with the Logos morph DB by specifically referencing this verse/use, Logos instead populates the gloss field as “object-marker”??

And further, for DBL (the Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains:Hebrew), Logos glosses as “not translated” [= object-marker], contrary to Logos DB morphology, although Mic 5.14 [5.15 EVV] is not cited in DBL.

Can anyone help me see the logic/processes/order of operations by which Logos assigns lexical glosses as option#1, #2, or #3 here appropriately to individual lexica (vs. positing that Logos glosses may sometimes be assigned on grammatically-unrelated grounds, perhaps length or formatting of a lexical entry, and so less inherently useful for my own purposes).