Incomplete Grammatical Relationships in BWS

At Camp Logos 2 last week, I upgraded to the new L5 Gold base package. I had not had access to the syntactical databases prior to this, so it was exciting to discover the Grammatical Relationships section of the BWS when Mo demonstrated it.

Strangely, my results seem to be incomplete. Mo's Grammatical Relationships section showed several more instances of the word than mine did. When I checked with him during the break, we weren't able to figure out what the trouble was.

I think I'm running into the same thing below, as I study this week's gospel reading. Specifically, shouldn't the GR section include:

Lk 1:29, where ἀσπασμός is being modified?
Lk 7:39, where γυνή is being modified?

(Also, as others have reported, the header "Modified by Adjective..." appears to be backward, since ποταπός is the modifier in these cases, and not the word being modified. But that's a separate issue. Just wanted to acknowledge it.)

Would you folks mind checking your results against mine?

Thanks!

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Bob Schaefer

Whoops - my GR does cover Lk 7:39, but is indicating that τίς is the word being modified. This still doesn't seem right to me, but I admit that I'm still green when it comes to language study. The sentence is: Οὗτος εἰ ἦν προφήτης, ἐγίνωσκεν ἂν τίς καὶ ποταπὴ ἡ γυνὴ ἥτις ἅπτεται αὐτοῦ, ὅτι ἁμαρτωλός ἐστιν. Aren't τίς and ποταπὴ both modifying ἡ γυνὴ?

Kevin Becker

Would you folks mind checking your results against mine?

This is indeed curious. Your results are different than mine. I did notice that the Grammatical Relationships Section indicated that there is the possiblity of different databases being consulted. My seems to be pulling from Opentext.org. Does your show the same?

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/424772#Comment_424772

This is indeed curious. Your results are different than mine. I did notice that the Grammatical Relationships Section indicated that there is the possiblity of different databases being consulted.

The 5.0a beta includes support for Cascadia Syntax Graphs Grammatical Relationships, and Bob's results do come from Cascadia...

Bob Schaefer

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/424772#Comment_424772

I managed to surprise Mo by not having OpenText in my library. Apparently none of the various packages I've worked my way through, up to and including L5 Gold, include it. I was just about the only person in the room at Camp 2 who was not able to follow along on my own computer when the syntactical study was demonstrated. [:(]

Harry Hahne

The information in Bible Word Study in the Greek New Testament is often quite misleading and inaccurate in Logos 4.6. I had hoped that Logos 5 would fix this, but it appears it has not. As great as this feature could be, I cannot recommend this feature to students that are learning Greek. It just confuses them and at times it misleads them about the grammatical relationships between words.

For example, in the example of ποταπός that OP used. BWS lists the word as the object of εἰμί in Matt 8:27 and Luke1:29. While it might be debated whether ποταπός is the subject or the predicate nominative of the verb, it would certainly not be the object, since a copulative verb by definition does not have an object.

Similarly BWS says that in 1 John 3:1 ποταπὴν is "modified by adjective", but ἀγάπην (the related word) is a noun, not an adjective. It is correct to say that ποταπὴν is an adjective modifying the noun ἀγάπην. But this is the reverse of the direction of the relationship between the word in the BWS and the related word compared to the "object" instances shown above. For consistency, it would be clearer if the direction were the same in both cases. In any case, it would be more correct to say that ποταπός is an adjective modifying a noun, not the other way around.

I am sure I could find more extreme examples, but these came to mind since the OP raised the question of ποταπός. I hope this feature will be improved in the future. This feature could be great for teaching Greek and helping Bible students who only know a little Greek. Unfortunately, as it is now I cannot set a student loose to use it.

Sean Lillis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/424864#Comment_424864

I have to concur with Harry on this. I greatly appreciate BWS for many of its features, but due to the very reasons he pointed out, I seldom refer to the grammatical relationship piece, at least with respect to Greek grammar. An excellent example of why good training in grammar and an ability to perform a grammatical layout can never (totally) be replaced by automated software...even software as wonderful as Logos! :-)