Syntax Search including several verses OR mistake in Cascadia Syntax Graph

Page 1 of 1 (3 items)
This post has 2 Replies | 2 Followers

Posts 354
Michel Pauw | Forum Activity | Posted: Fri, Apr 16 2021 4:18 AM

It looks like the ἳνα in Ephesians 3:18 is a nice example of a postpositive ἵνα. 

I tried a syntax to include all postpositive ἵνα's, but it didn't include this one. 

Image

How would it be possible to include Ephesians 3:18 in this search, and thus have the syntax search go beyond verse borders? 

OR ... would you agree with me that the Cascadia Syntax Graph mistakenly puts the last 5 words of vs. 17 (the head of which is in the nominative case, not in the genitive case!) in the wrong clause? 

Image
 

Posts 1418
LogosEmployee
Rick Brannan (Faithlife) | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Apr 16 2021 7:16 AM

Hi Michael.

There can be multiple ways to understand the syntax of a particular set of clauses; the Cascadia analysis reports the view of the creators of the data.

Michel Pauw:
and thus have the syntax search go beyond verse borders? 

Syntax search is innately bound to the structures of the syntax and the verse boundary has no impact on search results. If you use "Matching skips levels" on your Terminal Node 2 then this instance (plus nearly another 1,900 that are not likely relevant, unfortunately) will be located.

Rick Brannan
Data Wrangler, Faithlife
My books in print

Posts 354
Michel Pauw | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Apr 16 2021 11:10 AM

Hi Rick,

Thanks for your reply. I did try the Matching skips levels on Terminal Node 2, but that doesn't result in what I wanted to accomplish. I am focusing on instances of:
- one particular clause
- with a postpositive ἵνα

Since ἐρριζωμένοι καὶ τεθεμελιωμένοι is in the nominative case in Eph 3:17, it agrees with the subject of ἐξισχύσητε in 3:18, thus making ἵνα postpositive. In other words, the phrase ἐν ἀγάπῃ ἐρριζωμένοι καὶ τεθεμελιωμένοι belongs to the ἵνα-clause in 3:18.

However, the Cascadia Syntax Graph treats it as part of the previous clause, which seems obviously wrong, because there is nothing for it to agree with.

Where do we go to discuss these things with the creators of the data?

Thanks! 

Page 1 of 1 (3 items) | RSS