Hebrew Bible (BHS) morph "unmarked gender"
I have started a Hebrew class and most of the class is using Accordance. A recent assignment required us to look up many of the Hebrew nouns in Gen 1:1-6 and parse. About 70% of the nouns in Logos showed "unmarked gender" yet for the people using accordance they found genders. Anyone know why this is?
I thought maybe it was a setting or I wasn't looking in the right place. I am pretty well versed in Logos (taken Morris Proctors classes) and I used Logos for Greek without a problem.
Any help is greatly appreciated!
Comments
-
Welcome to the forums!
Just for the purposes of matching up to your Accordance friends, which Logos resource are you using?
- LHI for some of the nouns, gender is not specified
- BHW 4.18 is probably the closest match to Accordance (all nouns specified). Accordance is BHM 4.20 (latest is 4.22).
But just to illustrate (and maybe the purpose of the exercise?), LHI in v1 last word, carries as unmarked gender, BHW as feminine, BHS/Wivu as unmarked, and BHt as masculine.
0 -
Thanks for the response!
I am using Logos 9. The BHS I am using appears to be the 5th corrected edition. Did you mean BHS (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia)? If not, what is BHW?
I've taken a screenshot as an example below. In looking at the word for "day" (יֹ֥ום) if you look at the morphology indicators that pop up at the bottom left of the screen it shows "noun, common, unmarked gender..." Yet the key to the exercise shows masculine. Similar pop ups show unmarked gender for the vast majority of the nouns we looked at.
I also have the Lexham Hebrew-English Interlinear so I checked it and it also shows "noun, common, singular, absolute" with no gender.
And then I just looked at the NRSV interlinear and it too fails to include a gender morphology.
Same issue if I try another noun like night (לָ֑יְלָה):
I don't understand why so many nouns would not have a gender assigned...?
0 -
Yep ... your results are as I described. You probably got BHS with the Logos/Verbum Academic packages. I think BHS used BHM 4.14 (but I could be wrong).
I used the abbreviations mainly because that's what you run into, as you're studying hebrew. 'BHW' is:
Biblia Hebraica Westmonasteriensis with Westminster Hebrew Morphology 4.18 (BHW)
Popup below, is last word in Gen 1:1:
0 -
Just for interest:-
Bible w/Gender Unmarked Marked as Nouns
or None
BHS SESB 67113 84984 152,097 = Gender + None
BHS/WIVU 67111 84946 152,057 = Gender + None
BHW 4.18 108839 34538 143,374 Gender + None = 143,377
LHB 64814 81607 146,425 Gender + None = 146,421
.
BHW 4.18 stands out as having noun genders other than Masc/Fem. But its M/F total is still significantly different at 100,705.
SESB has an "Unmarked" noun gender as opposed to not specifying a gender (None)
.
* Unmarked is a query like morph.west.h:n???? NOT EQUALS morph.west.h:n?[bcfFmM]?? i.e. Nouns that don't have a gender
Dave
===Windows 11 & Android 13
0 -
Dave Hooton said:
Just for interest:-
I suppose in the grand tradition of curiousity, where the morphologies differ? Not unlike tracking movement on security cameras. Too bad one can't select text indices in the TC tool for comparison (closest, english translation).
0 -
Thanks everyone for the input. This has been interesting to learn what data go into our various translations and how things change. I have it resolved with my professor and have found another Hebrew Bible from Logos that does have the gender in the morphology that is consistent with Accordance (Anderson-Forbes). Thanks again!
0 -
Kelly, Anyone:
Would you be able to share what Bible that is? I've started finding myself confronting the same problem.
Thanks,
0 -
biblemanstan said:
Would you be able to share what Bible that is?
It would be the Andersen-Forbes in Logos The Hebrew Bible: Andersen-Forbes Analyzed Text | Logos Bible Software
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
MJ - Maybe that should have been more obvious to me, but it wasn't, so thank you!
Fortunately, I have a package that includes this text, so I will go take it for a spin and compare the results to the LHB and BHW. But seriously, thank you so much for being so responsive.
0 -
MJ - Maybe that should have been more obvious to me, but it wasn't, so thank you!
Fortunately, I have a package that includes this text, so I will go take it for a spin and compare the results to the LHB and BHW. But seriously, thank you so much for being so responsive.
0 -
MJ - Maybe that should have been more obvious to me, but it wasn't, so thank you!
Fortunately, I have a package that includes this text, so I will go take it for a spin and compare the results to the LHB and BHW. But seriously, thank you so much for being so responsive.
0 -
MJ - Maybe that should have been more obvious to me, but it wasn't, so thank you!
Fortunately, I have a package that includes this text, so I will go take it for a spin and compare the results to the LHB and BHW. But seriously, thank you so much for being so responsive.
0
