Syntax Gap Insight/Problem

I'm continuing to try to get better using the Gap operator and have hit what appears to be a snag. I'm studying 1 Peter 3:13-17, and there's a great gap in vs. 17, where the adjunct is separated from the predicator by a Gap. However, this verse does not appear as it should. The search seems like it should be:

The only reason I can think of that this doesn't work is that the object in the Gap (the secondary clause) is not actually related to the other elements of the construction. It is in an entirely different clause. Is this correct? If I change the "Gap" element to "anything," 1 Peter 3:17 appears. So this means that if there is a Gap between two elements of a clause, the "gap" operator does not register it as a "gap" if it is in a completely separate, unrelated clause. Is there a particular reason for this? Am I thinking about a Gap incorrectly or is it a probelm?

Find more posts tagged with

Resources

Comments

Dave Hooton

If you perform an analysis of the clause at 1 Pe 3:17 it consists entirely of embedded elements. This may help:

S[ A[ P<3>] [<4> P<5> S<6><7><8><9>]

P<10>]

[<11> A[P<12>] ]

The enclosed clauses are bounded by [ ], the words are indicated by < >

Your notion of words <4> to <9> being an "unrelated" or independent clause is fair.

If you look at Acts 20:35 and 28:4 the "gap" element and the result elements are all part of the same embedded element (secondary clause).

The OpenText GNT shows gap elements in parentheses ( ).

Edit

My first suggestion is that it is not worthwhile having an artificial distinction between Anything and Gap -> Anything should be literally that, and if there is anything significant then make "Gap" an option of Anything!

davidphillips

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/23040#Comment_23040

Dave,

Yes - I think that is exactly right. The problem, as you note in your citing of Acts 20:35 and 28:4 is that they are all a part of the same secondary clause. When a secondary clause interrupts a secondary clause, it is not a Gap. Gap's exist within primary and secondary clauses, not between them. As Rick noted, it's all artificial in a sense, and so the within vs. between is an artificial distinction as well (though there may be a good coding reason for it).

As for Anything vs. Gap, it already kind of works like that. "Anything" will find actual gaps. The problem with 1 Peter 3:17 is that it's not technically a gap (because it's in a separate secondary clause), so "anything" finds it, but not "gap." So for instance, the 1 Peter 1:2 contains a gap. The following search, mentioning no Gap, will find it:

The only reason that I wouldn't want "gap" to be an option under "anything" is because then it's no longer "anything." I think that would become confusing (not that it's not confusing already [:P]).

I think I'm rambling. Does any of that make sense?