"preterite" in Logos Hebrew parsing
Hab 3.16 last word-form yehgUdennU in EG parsing has two lines:
-
verb... +/- yiqtOl (imperfect)
-
energic nun...preterite
Q1 (for those familiar with Logos Hebrew parsing tagging): How to read these two lines of parsing?
Line 1 as to form (= prefixed/imperfective) but line 2 as to function (= preterite aspect)?
OR line 2 as clarifying/identifying an identical older preterite tense identical in form but distinct in meaning from imperfect?
OR line 2 as presenting an alternative parsing (and/or also declining to make a call)?
So, for instance, Waltke notes two possible and at least potentially ambiguous uses of “preterite:” “...the old prefixed conjugation that signified a preterite situation (IBHS, P. 31.1.1). But this form can also be construed as an incipient past imperfective IBHS, P. 31.2c). A conclusive decision between these two interpretations cannot be reached, because aspect represents the author’s subjective view of a situation.” (Bruce K. Waltke, James M. Houston, and Erika Moore, The Psalms as Christian Lament: A Historical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2014), in n. 40 at Ps 44.11.
Q2 Do you think Logos has tagged all such possible “preterites?” And since there is quite a bit of variance among interpreters, does anyone happen to know the source for this “preterite” tagging in Logos (if other than alternative parsing in +/- of first line)? BTW:In addition to the interpretive import in passages (perfective vs. imperfective aspect or even past versus future) such linguistic data has been used, for good or ill, in the dating of biblical texts, which might make it more than minutiae.
PS: I recognize that the +/-, at least for this word-form in this verse, presents both imperfect and preterite as parsings from different sources, but my Qs are specifically how to interpret the two lines of parsing in EG (unless of course, one can say with certainty that is precisely the purpose of the second line and only used when there is an alternative parsing contained within the +/- marking = essentially, the third reading option above).
P.P.S. Older posts in this forum about "errors" regarding prefixed forms when different parsing databases list alternatively imperfect or preterite -- as opposed to different linguistic identifications or different interpretations -- unfortunately merely highlight the poster(s) blindspot about preterites in biblical Hebrew and the ANE.
Comments
-
I'm confused as I have only one line of parsing - however, the text wraps around if I narrow the panel. So parsing L1/L2 requires a screenshot for me to follow.
Q2 Do you think Logos has tagged all such possible “preterites?”
The data reflects the parsings supported in Logos not a collection of all possibilities.
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 -
Oops, mea culpa. I had a reduced screen.
But you may simply divide into two lines each ending with respectively (imperfect) and preterite.Or modify the Q to read: How to read the entire line when it lists both (imperfect) and at the end, preterite.
0 -
So, by the "parsings supplied by Logos" does that mean, for BH, the 3 databases listed under +/-? And then, say, if any one of those specific databases varies (has preterite) from the other two (with imperfect), that it will always -and only- be listed in this fashion in the EG parsing? So then the line is actually to be read something like: 2 out of 3 databases parse as imperfect and one parses alternatively as "preterite?" (a reading drawn from the content of the +/-). And would the EG parsing vary if 1 of the 3 read as imperfect and 2 read as "preterite?" That is, is the final arbiter for the EG listing like a committee vote among the three? [Although I imagine in almost every case, "preterite" would come in as the outlier among these three DBs.]
Or does "parsings supplied in Logos" mean the Logos DB parsing will always be listed first in the EG parsing line -- even if the other two differ -- and if they differ that will be listed at the end of the parsing line? And is that only in this specific regard with imperfect and preterite? [I don't use EG parsing that much as you might tell from my Qs, but I did not get the impression that other differences between these DBs are always appended at the end of the EG parsing.]
0 -
Shalom Don!
It would be helpful if you could post a screenshot.
The parsings that are listed in the Exegetical Guide depend on the (Reverse) Interlinear Bible that you have selected. I have tried several different settings but I am not seeing what you describe in your post.
0 -
Ahh. Sorry, I am not such a computer or Logos geek, so I ask a Q now and again on this forum to try and make some sense out of the information in Logos.
Seems you are correct regarding different parsing information (!) in EG depending on Bible version - so it is not in BHS transcripta, as in your screenshot.
I was in ESV and then EG lists RI Hebrew text under word by word section with the parsing I referenced.
If I copy to clipboard and paste relevant portion:
My Exegetical Guide
WORD BY WORD
The English-Hebrew Reverse Interlinear Old Testament English Standard Version
Habakkuk 3:16
שָׁמַ֣עְתִּי׀ וַתִּרְגַּ֣ז בִּטְנִ֗י לְקוֹל֙ צָלֲל֣וּ שְׂפָתַ֔י יָב֥וֹא רָקָ֛ב בַּעֲצָמַ֖י וְתַחְתַּ֣י אֶרְגָּ֑ז אֲשֶׁ֤ר אָנ֙וּחַ֙ לְי֣וֹם צָרָ֔ה לַעֲל֖וֹת לְעַ֥ם יְגוּדֶֽנּוּ׃ | ESV OT RI
...
יְגוּדֶֽנּוּ׃ yeḡû·ḏěnʹ·nû I hear, and my body trembles; my lips quiver at the sound; rottenness enters into my bones; my legs tremble beneath me. Yet I will quietly wait for the day of trouble to come upon people who invade us.
גוד gwd assault, attack
verb, Qal, third person, masculine, singular, yiqtōl (imperfect),
energic nûn, third person, masculine, singular, active, preterite
[PS If you want to instruct me as to precisely pasting a screenshot in this forum, that would be appreciated. Some past attempts have not succeeded apparently.]0 -
An energic-nun (also called a “paragogic nun” or a “euphonic nun”) is a nun which is used in some verbs when a pronominal suffix is added. It has no effect on the meaning.
Suffixes with energic נ. In the future (and imperative) we also find a series of suffixes with a נ called energic or epenthetic (inserted) Nun. This נ, originally, probably indicated a certain energic meaning (as in Arabic)(). But it now carries no semantic value; its energic force is merely phoneticPaul Joüon and Takamitsu Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2003), 172.0 -
Thank you.
My question was not about energic nun.
Maybe look at my first post and send your thoughts?
0 -
I will try to be clearer as to my Q.
I am looking for someone with the gift of interpretation for "Logos speak" with regard to parsings, in particular the parsing as "yiqtol (imperfect)....preterite."
Whenever and wherever I see a single biblical Hebrew word(-form) (with or without a suffix or energic nun and regardless of person/gender/number) parsed as : "yiqtol (imperfect)....preterite," what does this combination and specifically the addition of "preterite" mean? There are at least two ways I might construe this parsing (and maybe some other, and better way, that I should read it).
1) Does the Logos parsing mean to convey: "Logos (and is that strictly speaking the Logos DB OR a majority of two out of 3 DBs reflected in the +/-?) parses this word-form as imperfect, but be aware that there is an alternative parsing as 'preterite.'" And does this also imply any preference for one or the other or is such a Logos parsing statement meant to be read: "Take your choice between the options of imperfect and preterite?"2) OR does this combination mean the Logos parsing for that word-form is "imperfect by form, but it is actually preterite, either in function (durative imperfect - action beginning in past time and continuing) or as an "early" [or "archaic" or "archaizing," depending on the scholar] Semitic prefixed conjugation representing a past event?" (Compare as frequently found in narrative with prefixed waw - and so perhaps there best termed waw consecutive plus preterite - but variously called waw consecutive plus imperfect or waw conversive plus imperfect, or simply wayyiqtol, etc.)? [A further note on that preterite conjugation is appended below for any unfamiliar with that particular aspect of Semitic historical linguistics.]
N.B. On an archaic Semitic "preterite" (but many times the same form as prefixed imperfect, without getting into all the gory details of when the form differs): "The finite forms of the verb in early Semitic were undoubtedly very similar to the Akkadian preterite and durative forms, i.e., two conjugations inflected with prefixes (and suffixes in certain persons): a perfective form that functioned both as a past tense and as an injunctive (jussive), ...; and an imperfective form...."
John Huehnergard, “Languages: Introductory Survey,” ed. David Noel Freedman, The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 156.0 -
I believe it means "the parsing applied to this text (directly or indirectly) provides X but alternative parsings included in Logos allow an alternative parsing of Y"
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 -
That's what I think too after your prior posts.
TY
0 -
1) Does the Logos parsing mean to convey: "Logos (and is that strictly speaking the Logos DB OR a majority of two out of 3 DBs reflected in the +/-?) parses this word-form as imperfect, but be aware that there is an alternative parsing as 'preterite.'" And does this also imply any preference for one or the other or is such a Logos parsing statement meant to be read: "Take your choice between the options of imperfect and preterite?"
Yes, this is what it means.
I can't reproduce what you're reporting (and I haven't seen a screenshot so this is a little bit of guesswork) but the only Hebrew analysis that I know of that uses the word "preterite" is Andersen-Forbes. So the EG is reporting that AF analyzes this word as the "preterite" verb family, but other morphologies in your library analyze it differently.
0 -
Hover over the ± symbol with your mouse cursor, and Logos will pop up a window that shows you which morphological analysis uses "preterite".
From here, you can consult that source to understand why they analyzed it that way. (This is not an "editorial decision" being made by the Exegetical Guide.)
0 -
Well, my Q was how to read the line of parsing and you have confirmed the "alternative" reading option that I mentioned as a possibility and that M.J. suggested, so thank you for that. And I will settle for that (partial) answer that the parsing means merely that at least one database (of the 3 under +/-apparently) offers a different alternative parsing.
I have no need to research why AF parses this as preterite in this passage. I included the two possible specific meanings for "preterite" when it comes to a BH imperfect (yiqtol) form in both my lengthier posts and a simple contextual reading of verses with this type of parsing will prove a fruitful exercise for any Hebrew exegete (even if ultimately rejected in a particular passage). But neither of those possible meanings (whether a formal conjugation conveying a past nuance or a functional meaning as to an incipient imperfective aspect) can be well-described as a "verb family."
And I do have qualms about the seemingly deprecatory representation that AF is "the only Hebrew analysis...that uses the word 'preterite,'" but you did qualify that by admitting that statement may stem from a lack of knowledge.
0 -
seemingly deprecatory representation that AF is "the only Hebrew analysis..
You misunderstood Bradley. You can expand his statement to "of the Hebrew parsings included in Logos, only Anderson-Forbes uses the terminology of "preterite" - he was stating a fact not expressing a value judgment.
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 -
The partial answer about preference or selection of an alternative or the ordering of terms still left me seeking to better understand Logos-ese, specifically the parsings given in the EG.
So I would like to propose a completely different reading of ALL the parsings in EG, a theory that I would be glad to have confirmed or refuted. In regards to the "preterite" conjoined with "imperfect (yiqtol)" it sort of amounts to "there is an alternate parsing;" but I think the actual reading of these parsing lines is ultimately quite different.
Here is the theory: The parsing information given in EG is indeed not editorial (like "We think this, but there is an alternate parsing"), but rather it is simply an assemblage/collocation of every term from all three of the listed Databases. In other words, the parsing information in the EG means: "All these terms occur in the three databases we sourced."And I suggest this leads to some very strange parsing lists as a result![shades of Chinatown: "She's my sister; she's my daughter; she's my sister and my daughter!"] So for two quick exx, pull up the word by word in EG for the ESV at Ps 44.11.
For tsOn, "sheep," Logos says (because it is merely collecting and listing all the terms in all 3 databases), "It is masculine; no it is unmarked gender. It is singular, no it is collective. It is all of these terms in the 3 databases."And for the first verb form, tittehnEnU, "you put/gave-us," under just the verb portion, the parsing says: "It's second person; no it's first person. It is singular. No it is plural. It is yiqtol (imperfect); no it is preterite. It is all of these terms in the 3 databases."
"It is all of these things, contradictory or not, or even referring to a pronominal suffix as well as the verb, because I am simply a computer program that has looked at these three databases and I am merely presenting an inclusive listing of all those terms here."
PS. Please do not get distracted by the one compound example of a verb + pron. suffix example above. Please show me examples in Logos E.G. that do not fit this theory.PPS. Should this be a separate post re. Parsings in Logos' EG as representative of three, occasionally disparate, databases?
0 -
Well even that would be inaccurate, since many commentaries and grammars within Logos present "Hebrew analysis" of the well-established BH preterite (whether conjugation or function).
But leaving those aside, I find the description "only" (one) [of three (databases)] to be misleading and disingenuous.
And I fear such a broadside statement will foster distain for the term "preterite" and perhaps even the fine AF database.0 -
"It is all of these things, contradictory or not, or even referring to a pronominal suffix as well as the verb, because I am simply a computer program that has looked at these three databases and I am merely presenting an inclusive listing of all those terms here."
This represents a misunderstanding of the linguistics behind the parsing. The Hebrew morphology is simply a particular theory of morphology applied to the available texts to infer a particular set of morphological rules ... it is inferred from the corpus of texts not something that was consciously applied to the texts. There are different theories of morphology with different terminology. What you are seeing is morphology theory A as applied by the author of this parsing says this is singular; morphology theory B as applied by the author of this parsing says this is a collective ... not contradictory - simply viewing the text through different morphological lens. Commentaries, monographs, grammars, etc. may utilize other morphological theories but these are presented for specific cases not assigned across the entire OT Hebrew text.
Well even that would be inaccurate, since many commentaries and grammars within Logos present "Hebrew analysis" of the well-established BH preterite (whether conjugation or function).
Commentaries and grammars do not appear in the Word-by-Word section of the exegetical guide parsing line. The three Hebrew parsings that I own are each specific to a single Hebrew text that has been tagged with Hebrew parsing. Logos, Anderson-Forbes and WIVU - each representing its own morphological theory. Only the Logos parsing was done by Logos. The other two parsings are the work of other early computer assisted morphology analysis by early researchers.
The data from Commentaries appears in the Commentaries section of the exegetical guide.
The data from grammars appears in the Grammars section of the exegetical guide.
Somehow, I have lost the thread of the point you are trying to make and my knowledge extended only to what Logos is presenting to you, not what a perfectly tagged and informed system would offer if it applied only the morphological analysis of your choice.
And I fear such a broadside statement will foster distain for the term "preterite" and perhaps even the fine AF database.
I hope not. My concern with computer assisted Bible study is that people know precisely what the data they are looking at is. They can then make an educated judgment as to whether or not that serves their purpose.
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 -
"My concern with computer assisted Bible study is that people know precisely what the data they are looking at is. They can then make an educated judgment as to whether or not that serves their purpose."
And you are usually wonderfully helpful (always indebted for your contributions) in that regard! Even now, after a torturous thread, I feel I have finally, albeit circuitously, come to a better understanding of the parsing line(s) [depending on size of window and computer screen] under the word by word section in the EG, although I wish someone had simply interpreted the Logos-ese up-front.
The word by word section in EG, unless I stand corrected, is not a "Hebrew analysis" of each word-segment as some Logos marketing or even a poorly worded comment might imply. It is "Hebrew analySES" -- a potentially confusing and sometimes contradictory listing of all the terms found in three particular databases.
That the nature of the data is not precisely and clearly indicated to Logos users, well, I think has been confirmed by both this thread and by previous posts on this forum. Such posts affirmed AF contained "errors" by using the term "preterite" where other databases offered "imperfect." Some of those posts had even called for such data in the AF linguistic analysis to be removed from Logos! I did not see a precise explanation of the data in those threads, but rather even some responses that such "errors" would be reported!0 -
And, to be even clear about the "data" in Logos, this particular "parsing" method (conflating different "answers" within 3 different databases), is used in Logos exclusively for the Old Testament.
In the New Testament, Logos distinctly presents a "definitive" parsing, as exegetes might expect within an "EXEGETICAL Guide" in accord with the process they were taught to exercise in their language studies.
0 -
In the New Testament, Logos distinctly presents a "definitive" parsing, as exegetes might expect within an "EXEGETICAL Guide" in accord with the process they were taught to exercise in their language studies.
No, the New Testament is handled in the same way. It is simply that as an Indo-European language there is less difference in morphological analysis for the Greek. You may have resources for only one morphology. It is no more definitive than that of any other language. A definitive parsing can exist only for an artificial language.
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 -
Could you post a screenshot where your NT EG word by word section lists BOTH imperative and indicative as parsing terms under pisteuw in Jn 14.1? Or other contradictory parsing examples for NT passages?
Then I will stand corrected.
0 -
PPS. The purpose of my quotes around "definitive" was tongue-in-cheek and I would have thought that would have been understood from the entire thread re. "imperfect" and "preterite" being conflated in so many OT passages and posters screaming for the elimination of "preterite" as an alternate parsing (conjugation) or analysis (function).
0 -
No, I don't have the time to verify what Greek interlinears I own etc. etc. I happened to know in Hebrew because in the early days of Logos Andersen-Forbes was king.
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 -
This is from the exegetical guide on my phone. It’s just giving you the parsing information. Even if one did not have Logos and just had a Greek New Testament you would still be confronted that the word pisteuete can be either parsing.
. 0 -
Wow. I stand corrected.TY.
(I should only have said, "In my Logos edition, I do not see such contradictory parsing in the NT exegetical guide." Actually shouldn't have said it. It was sort of a tag-on to earlier discussion regarding reading OT parsing section.)
Do you happen to know what additional Greek morphology databases or Logos versions need to be purchased to see such? And when they were first made available?
[And you are correct that other resources or simply solid knowledge of the languages alert to contradictory/alternative readings. The question originally was about how to read the parsing line(s) in the EG word for word Hebrew Bible, particularly since some had called alternative parsings there "errors." And no one spoke up to say, "All terms found in three separate databases are included there, whether contradictory or not." I had to eke it out for myself.]
0 -
Logos Morphologies in the wiki provides a list of morphologies and resources.
particularly since some had called alternative parsings there "errors."
You need to be in the forums for a while to know how to interpret reported errors - some are from scholars with a comfortable familiarity with the data; others are from first year self-teaching students; everything in between will appear at some time. The forums have room for all of them. It is the responses - acknowledging the error, explaining the discrepancies, pointing to grammars or Logos Factbook/guide sections - that should inform your understanding.
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 -
Do you happen to know what additional Greek morphology databases or Logos versions need to be purchased to see such?
0 -
I find the description "only" (one) [of three (databases)] to be misleading and disingenuous.
These forums are about Logos Bible Software. You can safely assume that any comment I make in these forums is about how databases are encoded and represented in the Logos software.
I do not comment on Hebrew morphological analysis in the abstract or make value judgments about whether one analysis is "better" than another. If I were to make any comment that seemed like a value judgment, it would be a assessment of how well the software implements and supports that database, not a judgment of the underlying work represented by that database.
0 -
TY for the correction. You are right; I don't have NT resources available that others do that become auto-imported/("populate?"), I guess, into the word-by-word EG section.
[Just to close this thread out, I don't suppose you happen to know if AF was "kicked off its throne" because of criticisms like: "'preterite' is an 'error'" found in posts, I think c. 2005, and on, with people pledging to avoid it? Or other methodological or linguistic reasons?]
0 -
Or other methodological or linguistic reasons?]
IIRC one major issue was dating - does time of composition or changes in Hebrew over time best explain it? (a super-simplification of the issues) Another influence was the increase in computing power available at a reasonable price allowed for more nuanced analysis.
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
