HDOT - Some discourse issues
I happened to look at the HDOT/LDHB at a particular passage. I would like to give some feedback on a couple of issues:
HDOT 1 Kings 18:36-7 said:
Why sub-point that you are God in Israel // sentence and that I am your servant? In the next verse it is sub-point that you, O Lord, are God // sub-point and that you have turned their hearts back.
Why is it sentence that this people may know?
In the following example from HDNT there is no problem identifying the result/purpose as sub-point
HDNT Matthew 2:23 said:
It might be argued that in the Greek the result is lexicalized (e.g. ὅτι) but not in the Hebrew. But aren't we looking at the discourse level? Does this point to a systemic analytical error in HDOT?
As it is, the "propositional annotations" in the HDOT (sentence, principle, support, complex, sub-point, elaboration, bullet) could do with some more categories. HDNT has one more annotation "circumstance" which is sorely missing. With an already limited field, I think analysis needs to be all the more precise so as to elucidate the propositional relationships.
Comments
-
Lee,
Thanks for the feedback, Lee! I'll look into this over the weekend and get back to you.
Regards,
Josh
0 -
What is Logos' views now, I wonder.
0 -
The sound of one hand clapping...
0 -
Hi Lee,I apologize it’s taken so long to reply."Why sub-point that you are God in Israel // sentence and that I am your servant? In the next verse it is sub-point that you, O Lord, are God // sub-pointand that you have turned their hearts back."Thanks for spotting this! You are correct. Both of these verses are annotated incorrectly. In both cases, the Hebrew connective כִּֽי functions as a complentizer, introducing a complement clause. According to our annotation conventions, complement clauses are left on the same propositional line as the main verb. The additional clauses (i.e v.36b-c “and I am your servant” / “and I have done all these things at your word”) should be marked as “Elaboration” and indented one space in from the main proposition (v.36a “O Yahweh, God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, Let it be known this day that you are God in Israel”)."Why is it sentence that this people may know?""It might be argued that in the Greek the result is lexicalized (e.g. ὅτι) but not in the Hebrew. But aren't we looking at the discourse level? Does this point to a systemic analytical error in HDOT?"Yes, we are looking at the discourse level, but our primary focus, as far as the database is concerned, is the annotation of discourse devices and semantic relations between propositions that are linguistically marked. In other words, although lots of semantic and pragmatic meanings occur at the discourse level, if this meaning is conveyed by a default means of expression, then we chose not to annotated it. This means, for instance, if a semantic coherence relation (i.e. purpose/result, etc,) between propositions is not explicitly marked (e.g. wayyiqtol) and therefore must be inferred based on other contextual factors, we have not specified what that relation is in the propositional outline. We leave this as an interpretive issue to be resolved by the reader, since in many cases, there may be more than one viable option. Unfortunately, this means that there will be instances where the English translators have made interpretive decisions that result in the use of English connectives that convey a specific relation that is not annotated in the HDOT’s propositional outline (e.g. the ESV’s choice to use the connective that in translating the wayyiqtol in v.37b).Thanks again for calling to our attention the mistakes in 1 Kings. I’ll make these corrections and hopefully we’ll be able to send out an update soon.0
-
Thanks for correcting the errors, Josh.
Josh Westbury said:"Why is it sentence that this people may know?" "It might be argued that in the Greek the result is lexicalized (e.g. ὅτι) but not in the Hebrew. But aren't we looking at the discourse level? Does this point to a systemic analytical error in HDOT?" Yes, we are looking at the discourse level, but our primary focus, as far as the database is concerned, is the annotation of discourse devices and semantic relations between propositions that are linguistically marked.
I would maintain that in a language that does not typically "linguistically mark" (lexically mark) a purpose/result clause, it is incorrect methodology to look for markers. To label purpose/result clauses "sentence" is as much a choice as to label it otherwise.
0 -
I would suggest Logics of Conversation by Nicholas Asher as one source to broaden the perspective past lexical
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 -
M.J.: I think by now I would not automatically assume from what you've written that you're being condescending, but it does come across as that.
Since you have read the book, what point do you wish to make here?
0 -
No, Lee, I just thought given your comment about "lexically marked" you might be interested in the principles of classification beyond lexical. But if you aren't interested, no problem ... I was just making the option available not promoting the option.
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 -
If that's your point, you've misread me entirely.
My point is that seeing whether a result/purpose clause is "lexically marked" is not the method of choice of discourse analysis. This holds true especially for languages where the default lexical marking is a conjunctive, or an asyndeton.
Looking for lexical marking, or "linguistic marking", is Josh's position.
I would be most careful before I suggest to another person a book to "broaden his perspective".
0 -
Lee, again we are having trouble communicating. I thought I could make a brief comment directing you to a book I thought you would find interesting. Reading anything else into it is reading what was not intended.
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 problem is one of context.
In the discussion at hand, your remark about broadening perspective would have been better directed at Josh. Directing it at me, all of a sudden as it were, is infelicitous.
0 -
Lee said:
The problem is one of context.
In the discussion at hand, your remark about broadening perspective would have been better directed at Josh. Directing it at me, all of a sudden as it were, is infelicitous.
I was describing an attribute of the book - an attribute that I consider positive. Directing it to either you or Josh would be inappropriate on the forum although the resource in question would broaden the view of a collective "you" ... any generic, representative, collective you. I would suggest that you take it as a compliment that I thought you would not only understand but also enjoy the book.
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 -
Ah, I see. So you had meant to suggest ways of looking at things past lexical markings, without directing it at anyone in particular. (...directing you to a book I thought you would find interesting...)
Sure, I'd go along with that.
MJ. Smith said:I would suggest that you take it as a compliment that I thought you would not only understand but also enjoy the book.
That sounds so un-condescending. Thank you for the compliment, which was not directed at me in particular.
0 -
Lee said:
Why sub-point that you are God in Israel // sentence and that I am your servant? In the next verse it is sub-point that you, O Lord, are God // sub-point and that you have turned their hearts back.
Why is it sentence that this people may know?
In the following example from HDNT there is no problem identifying the result/purpose as sub-point
Matthew 2:23">
It might be argued that in the Greek the result is lexicalized (e.g. ὅτι) but not in the Hebrew. But aren't we looking at the discourse level? Does this point to a systemic analytical error in HDOT?
As it is, the "propositional annotations" in the HDOT (sentence, principle, support, complex, sub-point, elaboration, bullet) could do with some more categories. HDNT has one more annotation "circumstance" which is sorely missing. With an already limited field, I think analysis needs to be all the more precise so as to elucidate the propositional relationships.
Wow! I didn't have clue about this features of the Old Testament. Thank you Lee for making me aware of it. I am waiting eagerly for Logos to open to purchase it.
Blessings in Christ.
0 -
X-ref this thread.
0
