Differing morphological results

I am having trouble understanding why the the instructor's construct noun search results vary significantly from mine. Wondering if somebody could shed some light on the discrepancies?

His is on left, mine is on right. He is on Logos 4, I am on 5. Different morphologies (AFAT vs Logos Morph). Yet isnt a construct noun a construct noun?? And even if there are a few differences, should there not be some parallel/matching?

Thanks!

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Lee

Perhaps his resource was not up to date, and yours is?

Dave Hooton

His is on left, mine is on right. He is on Logos 4, I am on 5. Different morphologies (AFAT vs Logos Morph). Yet isnt a construct noun a construct noun??

Not if it is considered to be Suffixed (AFAT) which Logos Hebrew applies to the (suffixed) Pronoun, which is treated as a separate word.

David Knoll

AFAT analysis is different from LHB and WHM.

They take טמא as a noun instead on an adjective and analyse the epithet "God of hosts" as a construct phrase even though God's name as a proper name cannot be declined and therefore shows no external morphological marks for being in the construct state.

AFAt analyse עם as if it is in the construct state (how and why I have no idea). WHM and LHB correctly analyse it in the absolute state.

In LHB and in WHM בתוך comprises two morphemes: ב (a preposition) and תוך (a noun in the construct state). AFAT correctly analyse this word as a preposition. It is no longer a compound word - It is fossilised.

The accumulation of all this in a single verse (Isa 6:5) is the cause for the differences you notice.