Trying to understand tagging in Mark

The screenshot below shows - correctly - a result when searching for John the Baptist being the subject of the lemma γίνομαι in Mark

But right-clicking on the verb in the text doesn't show that it is tagged with John.

Similarly in Mark 1:14 the verb "went" isn't tagged with the person Jesus

but in Mark 1:29 it is (along with his disciples)

I feel I haven't grasped how this works Smile

Can anyone advise / comment?

Thanks, Graham

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Jacob Cerone

It could be (note: I'm not speaking from a position of authority/knowledge) that the verbs that don't have explicit subjects within the clause have the reference data attached to the verbs. Verbs that have explicit subjects within the clause will lack that data. This is because the subject is there. When you search for <Person John the Baptist> Mark 1:14 will appear as a result, but because his name is in the context. If this is true, I would imagine the reason is to prevent having multiple results appear for the same reference.

MJ. Smith

Ever hear of deixis? It is basically the information that is implicit in an utterance and necessary for understanding the meaning. So when there is an explicit subject, you don't understand the subject by implication but explicitly - so the explicit subject is tagged. However, when there is only an implicit subject, the subject is coded with the verb because it is the very that conveys the information by implication.

Liz Licata

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/748528#Comment_748528

thank you for bringing this to my attention. I'll look at the tagging and see if I can improve it.

Liz Licata

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/749152#Comment_749152

It looks like the tagging was incomplete in those two verses, so I have corrected them. Upon the next update of Factbook, the tagging will be right

Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/749414#Comment_749414

Graham, I don't recall what the thread was and don't have time to look for it, but your question reminds of a discussion I was involved in months ago and, as I recall, Mark Barnes had an explanation for it (unless I remember incorrectly). Perhaps you can find it.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/749424#Comment_749424

Graham, you are right there is an unexplained inconsistency here ... in spot checking, I'm hitting a high percentage of aorist verbs missing tagging ....including in previously reported errors that have been fixed. Why not change this to a bug report?

Graham Criddle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/749431#Comment_749431

Hi all

Thanks for all the various comments. I don't have access to my computer at the moment. I'll follow up when I do.

Graham

Graham Criddle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/749424#Comment_749424

Hi Francis - thanks for that.

Graham, I don't recall what the thread was and don't have time to look for it, but your question reminds of a discussion I was involved in months ago and, as I recall, Mark Barnes had an explanation for it (unless I remember incorrectly). Perhaps you can find it.

You may be referring to the discussion at https://community.logos.com/forums/p/94713/660045.aspx#660045 - if so, I think it is addressing a slightly different issue.

Graham

Graham Criddle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/749414#Comment_749414

Hi Elizabeth

It looks like the tagging was incomplete in those two verses, so I have corrected them. Upon the next update of Factbook, the tagging will be right

Thanks for that - appreciated.

However, as MJ suggests above, it looks as though it might be a more wide-spread issue

Further couple of examples below with the first one being tagged with the Person and the second one not

Above

It could be (note: I'm not speaking from a position of authority/knowledge) that the verbs that don't have explicit subjects within the clause have the reference data attached to the verbs. Verbs that have explicit subjects within the clause will lack that data. This is because the subject is there. When you search for <Person John the Baptist> Mark 1:14 will appear as a result, but because his name is in the context. If this is true, I would imagine the reason is to prevent having multiple results appear for the same reference.

Jacob suggested that tagging may only be intended to be applied where there is no explicit subject (neither of the two examples above do) but I was wondering if you could clarify what the tagging rules are here?

Thanks, Graham

Graham Criddle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/749431#Comment_749431

Hi MJ

in spot checking, I'm hitting a high percentage of aorist verbs missing tagging ....including in previously reported errors that have been fixed

As per my post a few moments ago this isn't just limited to aorist verbs.

Why not change this to a bug report?

Still trying to clarify exactly what the bug is!

Graham

Liz Licata

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/750776#Comment_750776

There are indeed a high number of missing tags in Mark. The reason for this was that our standards changed to tagging implicit data AFTER we had finished this book.

The Gospel of Mark is on the long tail of things to go back and re-examine, but unfortunately it's not the highest on the priority list at the moment. I do fix things as I find them/am pointed to them and your reports are highly appreciated.

Graham Criddle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/751134#Comment_751134

Hi Elizabeth - thanks for getting back to me.

Just wanted to clarify a couple of things

There are indeed a high number of missing tags in Mark

As per my post above it looks like the issue is present in Matthew as well[:)]

The reason for this was that our standards changed to tagging implicit data AFTER we had finished this book.

Are you able to advise what the previous standards were and what they are now so that I can understand this better?

Thanks, Graham

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/751134#Comment_751134

There are indeed a high number of missing tags in Mark. The reason for this was that our standards changed to tagging implicit data AFTER we had finished this book.

Why do I feel that this isn't up to my standards for academic work or public distribution ... the tool helps me to some inconsistent level of accuracy in some books ....[:^)]