"finding Granville Sharp" is a sort of litmus test for the capabilities of Bible software."

A famous person once said:

"If you've been around Bible software, you know that many folks use
"finding Granville Sharp" as a sort of litmus test for the capabilities
of their Bible software."

And I've felt that to be a pretty accurate statement.

I've used v3 to find these constructions, but now I'd like to use V4 and give it a shot...

Can Rick Brannan possibly chime in and get me started? I've had no luck so far in duplicating your syntax search from the PDF posted on the blog.

Also....since the morph search actually replaces the Graphical Query...is it possible to construct a Granville-sharp search in the morph search in V4?

http://blog.logos.com/mt-cgi/mt-search.cgi?search=granville&IncludeBlogs=1&limit=20

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Dave Hooton

Sorry, but I gave Rick some time to chime [:)]

Yea, his search is quite convoluted. But here's my simple Granville Sharp:-

Word 1: ((Part of Speech = article))

Anything — Match 0 to 1 units

Word 2: Louw-Nida Domain = 12: Supernatural Beings and Powers
AND ((Part of Speech = adjective AND Number = singular) OR (Part of Speech =
noun AND Number = singular) OR (Part of Speech = verb AND Mood = participle AND
Number = singular)) — Highlight

Anything — Match 0 to 2 units

Connector 1
Word
3: Lexical Form (no marks) = "και"

Word 4: ((Part of Speech ≠ article)) — May Repeat 0 to 1
times

Word 5: Part of Speech = Word 2 AND Number = Word 2 AND Case
= Word 2 AND Gender = Word 2 — Highlight

It gets 42 hits in L3 but includes all the quoted passages for God and Saviour, Lord and Saviour --> I haven't done in L4 as yet!

If you saw my BUG report then believe that doing this in a Morph Search is almost impossible because of the equality required between Word 2 and Word 5 (the simplest requirement is that they have the same Case) and because there is no simple, effective expression to exclude the article in Word 4, unlike L3!

Rick Brannan (Logos)

A famous person once said:

"If you've been around Bible software, you know that many folks use
"finding Granville Sharp" as a sort of litmus test for the capabilities
of their Bible software."

And I've felt that to be a pretty accurate statement.

I've used v3 to find these constructions, but now I'd like to use V4 and give it a shot...

Can Rick Brannan possibly chime in and get me started? I've had no luck so far in duplicating your syntax search from the PDF posted on the blog.

Also....since the morph search actually replaces the Graphical Query...is it possible to construct a Granville-sharp search in the morph search in V4?

http://blog.logos.com/mt-cgi/mt-search.cgi?search=granville&IncludeBlogs=1&limit=20

I knew this would come back to haunt me. [:D] If you think I'm famous, you really need to get out more.

The queries I had for v3 should be able to be used as patterns for v4 queries for OpenText.org. I've been meaning to look into Granville Sharp and the Cascadia Syntax Graphs, but simply haven't had time or opportunity yet. I don't know that I will until after Thanksgiving. I'm responding to this thread so it shows up in my "Your Discussions" link on the forum page, so I won't forget about it.

If you're really interested, though, I believe Dan Wallace has a complete list in this paper: http://bible.org/article/sharpi-redivivus-i-reexamination-granville-sharp-rule. Also know that he's recently (in the past year) published a version of his thesis on Granville Sharp with Peter Lang, "Granville Sharp's Canon and Its Kin: Semantics and Significance". I'd guess there's a list there too. It could stimulate some thought on the problem.

The basic problem is that Granville Sharp's rule isn't quite exactly how most people sum it up — two substantives that agree in case/number/gender share the first substantive's article. As I recall it is actually singular "personal" substantives (?) that are *not* proper, and that ends up causing some of the complexity. That is, there are lexical restrictions as well as syntactic and grammatical restrictions/patterns to account for.

Robert Pavich

Dave,

I'll try this.

But isn't there a "must not be present" requirement that could be joined to the article in the second part?

Robert Pavich

Rick...

Are you trying to teach me to fish? Instead, just serve me up a plate of "Captain Ricks beer battered fish and hush puppies" thank you....

[:D]

I have read Dan's article and it was very informative.

Most people do misquote the rule, and you're right about the personal aspect...tough to do.

I'll give it a shot....but try not to fill up on turkey and fall asleep...we'll be waiting.... [:O]

Dave Hooton

But isn't there a "must not be present" requirement that could be joined to the article in the second part?

Yes.

the way they implemented Anything in L4 is such that you cannot apply a number of units to restrict its range. So it would be better to start with a Clause Component and make everyhting hang off that!

Clause Component

Word 1: ((Part of Speech = article))

Anything — Match 0 to 1 units

Word 2: Louw-Nida Domain = 12: Supernatural Beings and Powers
AND ((Part of Speech = adjective AND Number = singular) OR (Part of Speech =
noun AND Number = singular) OR (Part of Speech = verb AND Mood = participle AND
Number = singular)) — Highlight

Anything — Match 0 to 2 units

Connector 1
Word
3: Lexical Form (no marks) = "και"

Word 4: ((Part of Speech ≠ article)) — May Repeat 0 to 1
times

Word 5: Part of Speech = Word 2 AND Number = Word 2 AND Case
= Word 2 AND Gender = Word 2 — Highlight

Robert Pavich

Ok dave...trouble shooting time..what did I do wrong...I got 0 results.

Chris Elford

The queries I had for v3 should be able to be used as patterns for v4 queries for OpenText.org. I've been meaning to look into Granville Sharp and the Cascadia Syntax Graphs, but simply haven't had time or opportunity yet. I don't know that I will until after Thanksgiving.

Rick,

Thanks for your involvement in this one, also. I'll be trying to follow it as I want to become proficient in the original language search capabilities. If you have a chance to engage with us wrt my question in http://community.logos.com/forums/t/4835.aspx I'd appreciate it.

In order to help you get to it, may I encourage you to take a short drive north, say 40 miles (which will become 65 kilometers) because then Thanksgiving will be over and we can get your input [:)]

Honestly, you need the break, so enjoy the holiday, next week!

Chris