Extend typo suggestions to Lemmas, morphology, etc

There is a mistake in the Letter of Aristeas 2 in Penner, Ken, and Michael S. Heiser. “Old Testament Greek Pseudepigrapha with Morphology.” Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2008. Both the lemma and the parsing are wrong:

It should be the verb πειράζω and the parsing should be, ptc, pf, mid, dat, ms.

But, there is only the ability to report typos under the "selection" not under the either "lemma" or "morph" in the context menu. I can, of course, report the typo under "selection" but it will be less specific.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Jon

Whenever I come across errors in the data I just report typo and put the information in the comments box...

NB.Mick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/659188#Comment_659188

Whenever I come across errors in the data I just report typo and put the information in the comments box...

I think, for errors in data there's a dedicated mailbox: data@logos.com which might be the better choice (as confirmed in this thread)

Fr Devin Roza

There is a mistake in the Letter of Aristeas 2 in Penner, Ken, and Michael S. Heiser. “Old Testament Greek Pseudepigrapha with Morphology.” Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2008. Both the lemma and the parsing are wrong:

It should be the verb πειράζω and the parsing should be, ptc, pf, mid, dat, ms.

I'm no expert on this, and have never studied this letter, but I'm curious...

The Liddel and Scott Lexicon agrees with the Logos parsing:

[quote]

✪ πειράζω, (πεῖρα) used by early authors only in pres. and impf., the other tenses being supplied by πειράω, -άομαι

The BDAG does as well, saying that the form πεπειραμένος is the pf. ptc. form of πειράω. The BDAG lists a pf. ptc. form for πειράζω, and it's different from that of πειράω - πεπειρασνένος.

Kittel also agrees with the Logos parsing. Also related, although not as explicit, is here.

Swanson seems to agree as well. He actually puts πειράομαι under both πειράζω and πειράω, but only under πειράζω he send the reader to see πειράω.

Am I missing something, or is the Logos tagging more precise than BW in this case? I wouldn't say tagging this word as πειράζω is incorrect, but it's not as precise as tagging it as πειράω it would seem, at least according to the sources I could check.

The parsing of the form is also fine, and corresponds to what you said it should be - the only part that could be more precise would be determining whether it was middle or passive, but leaving the option open is not the same as saying it is wrong:

Maybe this case is best considered an example of different linguistic theory being applied - e.g. should ειπον be tagged as the aorist of the lemma λεγω, or should it appear under a separate lemma? Different answers are possible and valid.

Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/659204#Comment_659204

Interesting... when overtaken by erudite professors and not having the time to do as much background correlating research, one can find himself under the impression that what is being advanced is correct (professors + BW + Accordance). We might say, in terms of Textual Criticism, that there were more "witnesses" for a certain lemma/parsing.

We shall serve the information you have brought up back to these specialists to see if there is another reason they thought it was wrong or whether they were mistaken (and BW and Accordance). I will post an update when I hear back about this.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/659223#Comment_659223

You've given a perfect example of why I dislike software telling me what the parsing is rather than giving me possibilities.

Lee

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/659385#Comment_659385

Correction: Software don't tell you the parsing. The people behind the software do. Crutches like parsing, discourse analysis etc. provided by Logos experts are only helpful to a point. In other words, one shouldn't accept the marketing hype 100%.

Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/659391#Comment_659391

Well, I agree that in an ideal world, we would know all our declensions top and bottom in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Latin and perhaps German and French. But in the real world, it's handy to check.

But even more so, the parsing is useful for large scale searches and studies. That's the advantage of software.

Lee

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/659419#Comment_659419

Having read your thoughts about Logos and searches, I think we're basically on the same page. [:)]