Greek Lemma Questions

Mark Hoffman

I'm trying to figure out what I may be missing...

I was using the NA27 with Critical Apparatus. I wanted to find all the instances in Mark where λεγω was used. I right click on λεγων in 1:7, choose the lemma λεγω, and search on the resource and reset my limits. I discovered, however, that I did not get any hits except for Present and Imperfect tense. Ah ha! It turns out that Aorist, Perfect, Pluperfect, and Future forms are all related to the lemma ειπον, not λεγω.
How is a determination of lemma made? What other instances like this are there?

I checked οραω, and this lemma is used for some tenses and ειδον is used for others. Even worse, ειδον is given as the lemma for Aorist actives, but οραω is the lemma for Aorist passives... unless the word has a prepositional prefix, in which case οραω is used for Aorist actives.

I checked εσθιω, and it is the lemma for all forms, including the φαγ- forms of the Aorist and Future.

The one work around is to use a version which allows for a "root" search (which is not available with NA27 w/ Critical Apparatus), but then you are going to go a lot of extra hits.
So what are others doing to make sure they actually are finding the hits they want?

Thanks

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Kevin Becker

This is a case where before Koine Greek (the Greek of the New Testament) there were multiple words that conveyed "to say." However, as time passed people started only using lego in only the present and the imperfect and eipen for other tenses. I'm sure there is a list somewhere of where all this happens. However, pay attention to the entry in BDAG. It will alert you when a word is only used in certain tenses and another word in other tenses.

Anon

I was using the NA27 with Critical Apparatus. I wanted to find all the instances in Mark where λεγω was used. I right click on λεγων in 1:7, choose the lemma λεγω, and search on the resource and reset my limits. I discovered, however, that I did not get any hits except for Present and Imperfect tense. Ah ha! It turns out that Aorist, Perfect, Pluperfect, and Future forms are all related to the lemma ειπον, not λεγω.

Interesting Mark, as last night I searched NA28 limited to James for λεγω and had the same experience. λεγω = 7 results, yet there are 6 results for ειπον not showing.

So what are others doing to make sure they actually are finding the hits they want?

In this case using "BWS" limited to James and paying more attention to the "root" section

Also, I use 2 other software programs that show the 13 results (6 ειπον and 7 λεγω) running one search. In other words, 3 programs to cross check results.

Mark Hoffman

Thanks, Kevin. I'm aware of the Koine developments, but I think in most grammars, ειπον is usually treated as the 2nd aorist of λεγω and ειδον as the aorist active form of οραω. (I also use BibleWorks which treats them as connected to the same lemma in searches.)

What you have helped me see, however, is that the distinction w/ these verbs is made due to the entries in BGAD. And who am I to argue w/ BGDAD?!

So, the question is, what other "2nd aorists" are treated this way. I just checked out a bunch of the most common verbs in BGAD, and so far I can only find that λεγω and οραω are treated thus. All the following verbs w/ 2nd aorists have those aoristscategorized under the lemma of the present tense form: ερχομαι, φερω, πινω, πιπτω, εσθιω, λαμβανω.

Mark Hoffman

@Anon: As I note in my response to Kevin, maybe it's just λεγω and οραω that get this treatment. So, either:

Use a root search and thin out the results
Use a lemma search using OR to connect the two forms
Use another program

Now I discover a new problem. If I try an OR search, this is what I get when I start to type > g:eipo

Guess which one is the one you need? It's the highlighted one, but why the confusion...

Anon

This is a case where before Koine Greek (the Greek of the New Testament) there were multiple words that conveyed "to say." However, as time passed people started only using lego in only the present and the imperfect and eipen for other tenses. I'm sure there is a list somewhere of where all this happens. However, pay attention to the entry in BDAG. It will alert you when a word is only used in certain tenses and another word in other tenses.

Thanks for pointing this out Kevin.

Anon

Now I discover a new problem. If I try an OR search, this is what I get when I start to type > g:eipo

Guess which one is the one you need? It's the highlighted one, but why the confusion...

Don't know... ran all the above search possibilities showing in your screenshot and 4 of the 5 returned 7 results while the one returned 13 results.

Bradley Grainger (Logos)

Guess which one is the one you need? It's the highlighted one, but why the confusion...

The search drop-down shows all the lemmas that exist in the resources in your library. My guess is that there's an encoding error in a handful of the resources in your library that is causing these spurious duplicates to occur, but I'll alert our Greek experts to your report so they can investigate further.

Lee

For all practical purposes, the search of a verb like λεγω should yield results for suppletive forms such as ειπον, and vice versa.

Not having it show up automatically is a huge oversight, in my opinion.

Here is a list of suppletive forms (not exhaustive).

George Somsel

X is used for … in the present but Y is used for the Aorist except when … unless …

The only thing to do is to learn the forms. It's comparable to some English words such as "Go, went, gone, going." The tendency is that the more frequently used words develop more of these forms which don't follow the rules.

Lee

Yes, George, but we're talking about a search function here. The general rule seems to be that searching one form should also yield forms that are grouped with the searched form in one lexical entry.

At least, that's what the competitors are doing. I would have thought that it works the same way in Logos.

Mark Hoffman

I agree with you, Lee, though I can see why Logos does this if they are just following BDAG. That said, I'm guessing that a lot of people don't know about this when conducting a search.

I'm still trying to find if there are any other instances than λεγω and οραω where the suppletive forms where this is the case. If it's just those two, then I can deal with it, but if there are a bunch of them that I don't know about, then it leaves me wondering about the validity of my searches...

Lee

You're right, BDAG does list εἶπον apart from λέγω. I noticed that before but it did not pop to mind.

Still, unless one is into etymology or philology, there's no practical sense in treating them apart in searches, and it could cause a whole lot of grief.

George Somsel

I agree with you, Lee, though I can see why Logos does this if they are just following BDAG. That said, I'm guessing that a lot of people don't know about this when conducting a search.

I'm still trying to find if there are any other instances than λεγω and οραω where the suppletive forms where this is the case. If it's just those two, then I can deal with it, but if there are a bunch of them that I don't know about, then it leaves me wondering about the validity of my searches...

Yes, there are other words. I think immediately of φέρω (οἴσω, ἐνεγκα), but I really was thinking of the Latin cognate fero which has the principle parts

fero, ferre, tuli, latus

This is a phenomenon which appears in most languages as I attempted to indicate previously. The most commonly used words are the ones which have unusual forms. It is best to simply learn the forms.

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :)

I was using the NA27 with Critical Apparatus. I wanted to find all the instances in Mark where λεγω was used. I right click on λεγων in 1:7, choose the lemma λεγω, and search on the resource and reset my limits. I discovered, however, that I did not get any hits except for Present and Imperfect tense. Ah ha! It turns out that Aorist, Perfect, Pluperfect, and Future forms are all related to the lemma ειπον, not λεγω.

Logos 5 can search for lemma and root. Analysis of lemma search shows present and imperfect tenses. Analysis of root search includes other verb tenses.

Noticed nouns, adjectives, and adverbs have "--" for verb tense.

I checked οραω, and this lemma is used for some tenses and ειδον is used for others. Even worse, ειδον is given as the lemma for Aorist actives, but οραω is the lemma for Aorist passives... unless the word has a prepositional prefix, in which case οραω is used for Aorist actives.

Analysis of Logos 5 root:οραω morph search shows four prepositional prefixes that have Aorist active usage:

The one work around is to use a version which allows for a "root" search (which is not available with NA27 w/ Critical Apparatus), but then you are going to go a lot of extra hits.

The NA27 w/ Critical Apparatus or another apparatus, e.g. => http://www.logos.com/product/8486/the-greek-new-testament-sbl-edition can be linked to a Greek edition with root tagging:

Keep Smiling [:)]

George Somsel

I was using the NA27 with Critical Apparatus. I wanted to find all the instances in Mark where λεγω was used. I right click on λεγων in 1:7, choose the lemma λεγω, and search on the resource and reset my limits. I discovered, however, that I did not get any hits except for Present and Imperfect tense. Ah ha! It turns out that Aorist, Perfect, Pluperfect, and Future forms are all related to the lemma ειπον, not λεγω.

Logos 5 can search for lemma and root. Analysis of lemma search shows present and imperfect tenses. Analysis of root search includes other verb tenses.

Mark, I think this solves your problem (and it's available in the plain Jane NA27 version too). What you need to do is to enter "root:" followed by the lemma you're searching. You will need to use the down arrow to set the selection. E.g. "root:λέγω" <down arrow to λέγω> <enter>

Lee

The one work around is to use a version which allows for a "root" search (which is not available with NA27 w/ Critical Apparatus), but then you are going to go a lot of extra hits.

Logos 5 can search for lemma and root. Analysis of lemma search shows present and imperfect tenses. Analysis of root search includes other verb tenses.

Noticed nouns, adjectives, and adverbs have "--" for verb tense.

Analysis of Logos 5 root:οραω morph search shows four prepositional prefixes that have Aorist active usage:

Thanks, both. That's useful to know. Of course, how a search for root:X would yield suppletive forms whereas a search for lemma:X does not, strikes me as counter-intuitive. For a distinction that is as fine and counter-intuitive as this, I think it needs to be rationalized and clearly documented.

George Somsel

The one work around is to use a version which allows for a "root" search (which is not available with NA27 w/ Critical Apparatus), but then you are going to go a lot of extra hits.

Thanks, both. That's useful to know. Of course, why a search for root:X would yield suppletive forms whereas a search for lemma:X does not, strikes me as counter-intuitive. For a distinction that is as fine and counter-intuitive as this, I think it needs to be rationalized and clearly documented.

I can't speak regarding the NA27 w/ Critical Apparatus since I don't have the critical apparatus version, but it is possible with the morphologically tagged Plain Jane model. It only makes sense that a search for lemma:x would not produce hits for suppletive forms since you simply are not asking for them whereas you are with the search root:x. Ask and you shall receive—don't ask and you won't receive.

Lee

I can't speak regarding the NA27 w/ Critical Apparatus since I don't have the critical apparatus version, but it is possible with the morphologically tagged Plain Jane model. It only makes sense that a search for lemma:x would not produce hits for suppletive forms since you simply are not asking for them whereas you are with the search root:x. Ask and you shall receive—don't ask and you won't receive.

Not to put too fine a point on this, but, what's the difference between lemma and root? I suspect most users don't have an answer.

If there's a difference (and there is) why would lemma:X drop suppletive forms, whereas root:X includes those forms?

I don't know about you, George, but I find it counter-intuitive. If I could design it from scratch, I'd actually do it in the reverse.

But since the feature is there, great. Let Logos put it out there, explain it and document it, so that users won't have to chase down this rabbit trail again.