Plural Nouns with KAI Search
Is there a way - using a morphological search - to search for combinations [like ποιμένας καὶ διδασκάλους in Eph 4:11] of plural nouns which are separated only by καὶ.?
Comments
-
I assume you are referring to nouns other than those you give. I also note that you say "separated only by καὶ" so I am allowing only cases where the words follow immediately upon one another. You said nothing about case so I am not controlling for that.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
Here's the best I could figure out for myself [for a SYNTAX SEARCH]
0 -
Thanks, George.
But I got 0 results - and there should be at least Eph 4:11.
Bill
0 -
If you want to try a Syntax Search, try this - be sure and match the dashed lines (Matching skips levels) and you may want to "Highlight term in results" for each box:
0 -
-
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
I guess you're right, George. I'm not sure why it didn't work for me in the first place. Thanks.
0 -
2541.MORPH vs SYNTAX SEARCH.docx
Thanks, Don. It worked very well.
I have attached the difference between the MORPH search and the SYNTAX search. It appears that the SYNTAX search covers more possibilities [for example where KAI is not "touching" the nouns [as in Matt 10:18]. However, I was surprised - when I made a passage list of the SYNTAX search - that it only contained 156 passages whereas the MORPH search has 167 passages. [I would have expected the opposite.]
However, as I understand it, both of these passage lists show that the so called Granville Sharp's Rule is not correct. For example, the very first two results [Matt 2:4 and Matt 3:7] produce a definite article before the first plural noun + kai + a second plural noun without an article - but neither passage refers to the same person [as his rule states]. Maybe you could help me on this if I am wrong.
Bill
0 -
George,
Here is a picture of my two searches [one with () and the other with <>]. They are both made in Byz. Maybe you can point out why one did not work - and the other did.
Bill
0 -
Don,
Here is a question about this SYNTAX search. Why do they call the KAI node TERMINAL NODE? It is in the MIDDLE of the phrase.
Bill
0 -
Bill Fiess said:
George,
Here is a picture of my two searches [one with () and the other with <>]. They are both made in Byz. Maybe you can point out why one did not work - and the other did.
Bill
The angle brackets were simply to set off the search string. Never include them.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
Bill Fiess said:
Don,
Here is a question about this SYNTAX search. Why do they call the KAI node TERMINAL NODE? It is in the MIDDLE of the phrase.
Bill
The Terminal Node is the node before the Word, so it allows you to express kai functioning as a Conjunction (node).
Dave
===Windows 11 & Android 13
0 -
Bill Fiess said:
the so called Granville Sharp's Rule is not correct.
Wallace's grammar contains a helpful discussion about this, at 270ff.
For now, this title can only be purchased from Logos in a bundle with many other language resources.
0 -
Bill Fiess said:
However, I was surprised - when I made a passage list of the SYNTAX search - that it only contained 156 passages whereas the MORPH search has 167 passages. [I would have expected the opposite.]
You have to compare Cascadia with another critical text e.g. LGNTI has 158 passages. Then if you perform a comparable Syntax search (without the Phrase) it also has 158 passages, with 2 results going across verse boundaries. But there are two results from the text search** that Syntax should produce and it would have 160 passages. you could call it even!
** Lk 1:2 and Ro 8:17
Dave
===Windows 11 & Android 13
0 -
Dave Hooton said:
You have to compare Cascadia with another critical text e.g. LGNTI has 158 passages.
That's a good question. Why should the search results be different ...
Dave, are you saying that Cascadia and LGNTI have different text bases?
0 -
Lee said:
That's a good question. Why should the search results be different ...
Dave, are you saying that Cascadia and LGNTI have different text bases?
Cascadia and LGNTI have the same text base (NA27 or critical text). Bill's 167 comes from the Byzantine Text Form: 2005 (Byz) which has a different text base to Cascadia. The Byz results only have 150 passages in common with LGNTI.
Dave
===Windows 11 & Android 13
0 -
Dave Hooton said:
Cascadia and LGNTI have the same text base (NA27 or critical text). Bill's 167 comes from the Byzantine Text Form
I get what you mean now. Thanks.
Dave Hooton said:How did this come about?
0 -
Lee said:
Lk1:2 is omitted because "eyewitnesses" is listed as Adj and Noun and the search only picks up the first one (Adj).
Ro 8:17 is omitted because the node type for kai is an Adverb, not a Conjunction.
Dave
===Windows 11 & Android 13
0 -
Here are some Logos-specific resources for you on Granville-Sharp, a lot has been discussed in the past:
Blog article by Rick Brannan:
http://blog.logos.com/2006/10/greek_syntax_searching_for_gra_1/
This thread shows constructing Granville Sharp in Logos 4:
http://community.logos.com/forums/t/5030.aspx
There is also a Faithlife group on Syntax Searching that is open to join, and you can get these syntax searches and others:
0 -
Thanks, Dave.
0 -
That's interesting, Don.
I looked through Rick Brennan's article [which was very thorough] but I would take it that Granville Sharp's Rule in INVALID based on the results I am getting from my search. Thus, for example, τοὺς δὲ ποιμένας καὶ διδασκάλους = and some pastors and teachers is NOT referring to a Pastor-Teacher [as Granville Sharp says and many today suggest].
0 -
Bill Fiess said:
However, as I understand it, both of these passage lists show that the so called Granville Sharp's Rule is not correct.
Since Wallace is no longer readily available in Logos, here is the pertinent portion of his discussion (pg 271)
[quote]
When the copulative και connects two nouns of the same case, [viz. nouns (either substantive or adjective, or participles) of personal description, respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connexion, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or ill], if the article ὁ, or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle: i.e. it denotes a farther description of the first-named person … .39
Although Sharp discusses here only personal substantives in the singular, it is not clear from this statement whether he intended to restrict his rule to such. However, a perusal of his monograph reveals that he felt the rule could be applied absolutely only to personal, singular, non-proper nouns.
In summary, Wallace added (pp 271-272):
[quote]Therefore, according to Sharp, the rule applied absolutely only with personal, singular, and non-proper nouns. The significance of these requirements can hardly be overestimated, for those who have misunderstood Sharp’s principle have done so almost without exception because they were unaware of the restrictions that Sharp set forth.
Particularly note that Granville Sharp did not include plural nouns in his discussion of the rule. Therefore, your search does not disprove the rule.
Just noticed you post immediately preceding mine. Those who use Sharp to interpret Ephesians 4:11 do so without properly understanding the rule.
0 -
Bill Fiess said:
Thus, for example, τοὺς δὲ ποιμένας καὶ διδασκάλους = and some pastors and teachers is NOT referring to a Pastor-Teacher [as Granville Sharp says and many today suggest].
Did Granville Sharp actually say this, or it that someone's misinterpretation of his rule?
0 -
Dave,
How would I perform this search with LGNTI?
0 -
Thanks, Jack. That was very helpful.
0 -
Bill Fiess said:
Thanks, Jack. That was very helpful.
Pleased to be of assistance. Sharp's Rule is often abused. It is much more restrictive than is usually misapplied. At one time, I accepted the misinterpretation of Ephesians 4:11 because I did not carefully examine Sharp's own discussion of his rule. Instead, I relied on—well, we won't go there [8-|]
0 -
Bill Fiess said:
Dave,
How would I perform this search with LGNTI?
I meant you should compare Cascadia Syntax results with a Morph Search on LGNTI (not Byz).
Dave
===Windows 11 & Android 13
0 -
0
-
Lee said:
The first is "as designed" by Logos but it might be worth a suggestion. The second comes from the query used - you could always search on the lemma kai without restricting it to being a conjunction.
Dave
===Windows 11 & Android 13
0 -
Yes. But how do I set up a Syntax Search for this in LGNTI? It has a different "menu" than Cascadia and [though I tried it] I couldn't seem to come up with the "formula".
0 -
Thanks, Jack.
Now this is not a Logos question [but I'm going to ask it anyway]. What [how would you define] is the distinction between a pastor and a teacher? [:)]
0 -
Bill Fiess said:
Yes. But how do I set up a Syntax Search for this in LGNTI?
Bill, I said you should do a Morph Search on LGNTI to compare with the syntax search on Cascadia. There is no syntax search with LGNTI.
Dave
===Windows 11 & Android 13
0 -
Bill Fiess said:
Thanks, Jack.
Now this is not a Logos question [but I'm going to ask it anyway]. What [how would you define] is the distinction between a pastor and a teacher?
I would say that a pastor, like his namesake, protects and guides his charges while a teacher simply instructs.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
Thanks, George.
Helpful.
0 -
Dave Hooton said:Lee said:
The first is "as designed" by Logos but it might be worth a suggestion. The second comes from the query used - you could always search on the lemma kai without restricting it to being a conjunction.
Hmmm ... the Lk 1.2 example looks like a definite bug, and a bug in the search engine algorithm at that. Could Logos please look into this?
0 -
Oh. I see.
0 -
Dave,
How would I do a search for plural nouns with KAI using the LSGNT [Lexham Syntactic Greek New Testament].?
0 -
Bill Fiess said:
Dave,
How would I do a search for plural nouns with KAI using the LSGNT [Lexham Syntactic Greek New Testament].?
Use a simple word search:-
It gets more complicated if you try to limit it with a Clause or Phrase similar to the original Cascadia.
Dave
===Windows 11 & Android 13
0 -
Lee said:
I would say that the bug is in the morphology. Αὐτόπται should be considered to be a noun. Its parallel with ὑπηρέται which is classified as a noun would seem to indicate such. It is a hapax so I don't know on what basis it is tagged as an adj.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
You make a good point, George.
But assuming that the tagging is right, is the search algorithm correct to pass over this instance? It shouldn't.
0 -
Lee said:
You make a good point, George.
But assuming that the tagging is right, is the search algorithm correct to pass over this instance? It shouldn't.
If the tagging were correct, yes, it would be correct to omit the passage since NOUNS were requested.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
George Somsel said:
Αὐτόπται should be considered to be a noun.
For what it is worth, the experts seem to disagree with one another. BDAG and L-N list αὐτόπτης as an adjective while Spicq and LSJ list it as a noun.
0 -
George Somsel said:
If the tagging were correct, yes, it would be correct to omit the passage since NOUNS were requested.
Nouns were requested, so all nominative adjectives are omitted? That is strange indeed. I would not expect that from a search.
0 -
Lee said:George Somsel said:
If the tagging were correct, yes, it would be correct to omit the passage since NOUNS were requested.
Nouns were requested, so all nominative adjectives are omitted? That is strange indeed. I would not expect that from a search.
Why should that surprise you? If I were to ask for a verb and the search presented me with a noun, I would THEN be surprised. Similarly with adjective <—> noun. If you wanted EITHER an adjective or a noun, I would suggest you indicate such or leave the slot empty.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
Where did you get that? The listing is consistently αὐτόπτης, ου, ὁ. This would indicate that it is considered to be masculine. Only nouns are exclusively one gender whereas adjectives must be present in all three genders in order to modify nouns in any of the three genders.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
George Somsel said:Lee said:George Somsel said:
If the tagging were correct, yes, it would be correct to omit the passage since NOUNS were requested.
Nouns were requested, so all nominative adjectives are omitted? That is strange indeed. I would not expect that from a search.
Why should that surprise you? If I were to ask for a verb and the search presented me with a noun, I would THEN be surprised. Similarly with adjective <—> noun. If you wanted EITHER an adjective or a noun, I would suggest you indicate such or leave the slot empty.
The Logos tagging shows
αὐτόπτης; adjective, nominative, plural, masculine; LN 24.46; eyewitnessDave Hooton said:Lk1:2 is omitted because "eyewitnesses" is listed as Adj and Noun and the search only picks up the first one (Adj).
It would appear that αὐτόπτης is tagged as an adjective and not a noun at all.
BDAG lists it as:
αὐτόπτης, ου, ὁ (αὐτός, ὀπτεύω = ὁράω ‘seeing with one’s own eyes’; Hdt. et al.; Polyb. 3, 4, 13; Vett. Val. 260, 30; PSI 1314, 10; POxy 1154, 8 [both I a.d.]; Jos., Bell. 3, 432) eyewitness αὐ. γενόμενος (Dionys. Hal., Pomp. 6, 3; Maximus Tyr. 16, 3h; Jos., Ant. 18, 342; 19, 125, C. Ap. 1, 55) Lk 1:2; Papias (2:2; 12:2).—DELG s.v. αὐτός and ὁράω. M-M. TW. Spicq.LSJ (which I find more reliable in such matters), shows:
αὐτόπτης, ου, ὁ, seeing oneself, eyewitness, Hdt.2.29, 3.115, al., Lg.900a, Euang.1.4, Din.3.15, D.22.22, etc.:—fem. αὐτόπτις, ἡ, Sch.Il.Oxy.1086.96.In both BDAG and LSJ, the lexical entry seems to be treated as a substantive.
If George Somsel feels this should not be caught by a search of nouns, that's fine. As MJ Smith famously says, let George be George.
In any event, I would urge Logos to refine their algorithm and/or tagging so that these instances are listed, in the case of functional substantives (which it clearly is, no matter if it is tagged "adjective" or "noun").
0 -
Lee said:
Dave Hooton said:
Lk1:2 is omitted because "eyewitnesses" is listed as Adj and Noun and the search only picks up the first one (Adj).
Hmmm ... the Lk 1.2 example looks like a definite bug, and a bug in the search engine algorithm at that. Could Logos please look into this?
To make sure I understand correctly: you're running a syntax search for "plural-noun kai plural-noun" and it's not returning Lk 1:2? If so, there is no bug here, because the first word is tagged as an adjective, not a noun. (It would be a bug to return this as a hit.) From Cascadia SBL (assuming that's the syntax DB you're searching):
0 -
Lee said:
In any event, I would urge Logos to refine their algorithm and/or tagging so that these instances are listed, in the case of functional substantives (which it clearly is, no matter if it is tagged "adjective" or "noun").
Whether the tagging itself is correct is a different matter (I was simply commenting on "search engine bug"). I'm not qualified to comment on this specific matter.
0 -
Lee said:
If George Somsel feels this should not be caught by a search of nouns, that's fine. As MJ Smith famously says, let George be George.
In any event, I would urge Logos to refine their algorithm and/or tagging so that these instances are listed, in the case of functional substantives (which it clearly is, no matter if it is tagged "adjective" or "noun").
A morphology search works on the morphe or form, not on its function. You can't tell a program to "find what I'm thinking of" (at least not yet). If you want a noun, don't expect an adjective among the hits—THAT WOULD BE A BUG ! You weren't asking for nominatives or you would have needed to specify such. BTW: I'm quite happy being myself.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0
