Wallace and Syntax Search Disagree

Ancient Heiser video showing Libronix 3 man-handle a Greek NT double accusative search impressed me. My attempts to show L5 equal to the task left me frustrated.

Don Awalt member of an active and fun Faithlife group came to the rescue. But, now I have a new dilemma. Wallace has entries not showing in the LSGNT results. My guess is that there are translation differences or tagging deficiencies accounting for the differences. Is L5 Syntax Search in this iteration perfect as is or is it a work in progress? Also who's right Logos or Wallace?

That was tell. Now here is show:

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Dave Hooton

Is L5 Syntax Search in this iteration perfect as is or is it a work in progress? Also who's right Logos or Wallace?

Cascadia also provides a solution using Secondary Objects** arising from double accusatives as per Wallace (one box for a Clause Function with attribute Secondary Object). The results differ from Lexham (262 vs 290) and seem to have more of Wallace's Object-Complement, but also missing some e.g. Heb 1:9.

The "rightness" is not down to Logos as it belongs to the authors & contributors of Lexham and Cascadia, who are bound to disagree with each other and Wallace! I also tend to disagree with the tagging...

** OpenText appears to use two Complements with the Verb but this is more difficult to construct as well as restrict to accusatives.

Beloved Amodeo

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/545265#Comment_545265

OpenText appears to use two Complements with the Verb but this is more difficult to construct as well as restrict to accusatives.

Dave,

Thanks for your reply, it really packs a wallop! I will work on a solution to this puzzle based on your instructions in Cascadia. My original attempt used the Opentext resource. If you don't mind, would you compose a solution?

Thanks in advance.

Beloved Amodeo

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/545285#Comment_545285

Dave,

Armed with your hint I was able to coax a solution from the Cascadia graphs. As you indicate it omits Heb1.9. As illustration I supply a screenshot.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/545285#Comment_545285

My original attempt used the Opentext resource. If you don't mind, would you compose a solution?

An OpenText query is not optimal without the tagging provided by Cascadia & Lexham.

Beloved Amodeo

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/545372#Comment_545372

An OpenText query is not optimal without the tagging provided by Cascadia & Lexham.

But Dave,

Isn't the database provided by Opentext adequate on its own?

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/545378#Comment_545378

Isn't the database provided by Opentext adequate on its own?

Without the tagging for this particular syntax the query is more difficult e.g.

I've not evaluated whether there are other combinations of Predicator and Complement.

Beloved Amodeo

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/545471#Comment_545471

Without the tagging for this particular syntax the query is more difficult e.g.

Thanks for your input Dave. My struggles with this query have been confirmed. I see I was coursing down the rabbit hole, probably needlessly. I post the best graph which found Heb 1.9 and appeared to return the best results.

I would be grateful if you would critique it.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/545505#Comment_545505

The two Clause constructs are the same and both must be satisfied (notice the explicit Or relationship in my query). Basically you need to build on my query with 2x Complements and additional parts-of-speech.

Beloved Amodeo

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/545541#Comment_545541

The two Clause constructs are the same and both must be satisfied (notice the explicit Or relationship in my query). Basically you need to build on my query with 2x Complements and additional parts-of-speech.

Dave,

Thanks for your reply. This draws an observation and a question. I am poorly informed. And is Opentext flawed as a analytical tool?

BKMitchell

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/545903#Comment_545903

... is Opentext flawed as a analytical tool?

No, it isn't. However, having said that no tool is prefect for every question. I suggest that you head over to OpenText.org and read for yourself what the raison d'etre of OpenText is and how it's data is structured. Then you can gauge for yourself when the data they present is the best for your queries.

Now, about Wallace you should be aware that he may have used a different software program, a different Grammatical or syntactical database(with a different philosophy), His own different philosophy, as other paper based tools for his study of the New Testament. If, you are truly interested in double checking his research it might be best that you also acquire the same tools he used to come to his conclusions. Then once you understand how he came to his conclusions you will be better informed how to use Logos to check out his work.

BKMitchell

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/546040#Comment_546040

Wallace's earlier work was highly influenced by the following:

James Boyer's Grammatically tagged Greek NT and searches run in an early version of AcCordance
Philip R. Williams works and personal correspondence

Beloved Amodeo

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/546040#Comment_546040

I suggest that you head over to OpenText.org and read for yourself what the raison d'etre of OpenText is and how it's data is structured.

BKMitchell,

I think it should please you to note that after my experience with Dave, I concluded that it would be interesting if I could find a corpus of work that explained the design and usefulness of the Opentext database. So, I visited the Opentext.org page in a search for such background. Two things struck me in my brief cursory experience with the site. Articles were presented only to 2006 and a scholar and employee of Logos by the name of Randall Tan was among the authors. I'm presently reading one of his articles. Nevertheless, there still appears to be much useful information to review.

Now, about Wallace you should be aware that he may have used a different software program, a different Grammatical or syntactical database(with a different philosophy),

Thank you for sharing this insight as well as the information in your second post; it is very helpful. Right now from a practical level my aim is to better use and understand the tools inside the Logos platform. This presents a question. Why would Mike Heiser present as an example of the power of the database using as substrate the work of another scholar who produced his result from another database where the differences were beyond trivial?

In any case I thank you again for your response it provides me with a compass for my own work.

BKMitchell

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/546237#Comment_546237

Articles were presented only to 2006 and a scholar and employee of Logos by the name of Randall Tan was among the authors.

That's ten after Wallace first published Greek Grammar beyond the basics (1996). So, it is possible that the authors of Open Text knew about Wallace's views. In fact I pretty sure they knew of it, but they may not have agree with him or may have been using a different philosophy.

Why would Mike Heiser present as an example of the power of the database using as substrate the work of another scholar who produced his result from another database where the differences were beyond trivial?.

Some of Mike Heiser's Libronix videos were meant to present and introduce Libronix/Logos3 (then brand new) syntax databases and searches at the Society of Biblical Literature. Take in mind that was at a time few had ever heard of a syntax database. So, Heiser may have used Wallace's work as an example because many 2nd year and more advanced Greek students are assumed to be aware of his works.

POST SCRIPT:

The Gramcord NT database that Wallace used in the early 1990's is available in Logos or at least an updated version of it. It is not a syntax database, but since 1976 till recently it was the standard database many scholars used. It was first released for mainframes, then for MS DOS in the 80's, later for Windows 95 and then in other software.