Differing morphological results

Myke Harbuck
Myke Harbuck Member Posts: 1,646 ✭✭✭
edited November 2024 in English Forum

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! 

Myke Harbuck
Lead Pastor, www.ByronCity.Church
Adjunct Professor, Georgia Military College

Comments

  • Lee
    Lee Member Posts: 2,714 ✭✭✭

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

  • Dave Hooton
    Dave Hooton MVP Posts: 36,095

    Myke Harbuck said:

    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.

    Dave
    ===

    Windows 11 & Android 13

  • David Knoll
    David Knoll Member Posts: 912 ✭✭✭

    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.

     

Categories