Morph Search Help Needed - David? - Rob? - Anybody?

Dave Hooton said:

Give me a few hours, but it sounds little different than your other request!

I'll gladly give you time.

It isn't really different, but I've continued to try and refined what I have done. I at least got to understand brackets, I think. I also clarified my memory that this isn't Granville Sharp's rule--that's the use of και and the omission of one article.

I was worried that the other question was lost in the forum as it was attached to someone else's query and I hadn't seen a response.

I wasn't trying to bug you. You guys are way ahead of me and are very helpful.

I'll wait -- albeit with bated breath.

Thanks, Dave.

Dave,

Thanks for looking at this twice. I missed your earlier answer, I'm sorry. I hadn't set it to email me and I didn't twig to the title after all the others I've looked at.

I can see that my basic understanding of the morph search is coming along. I'm still wrestling with specifics of the spacing, etc. Your explanation above is clear.

I'm not used to the terms and concepts in the Syntax search, although your example on my question helps me greatly. I'll have to "go to school" on the terms and concepts by reading through the glossaries and handbooks from Lexham, Andersen Forbes, etc. I took my languages 25 years ago and we didn't use the linguistic approach. I've been able to keep my languages up, fairly well, but haven't kept up with the new approaches.

I'm not sure if the changes are conceptual or more terminological. I'll probably be back asking questions again and again.

I wanted to add the presence of ειμι next. That will eliminate some of the extraneous hits, but won't get the ones that are already not included.

I may have to do it the old fashioned way: looking through them manually. But at least the computer can eliminate some.

Thanks again.

Chris

Dave Hooton said:

Chris Elford said:

I wanted to add the presence of ειμι next.

I don't understand this comment!

What I mean is that the search I asked about (this time) was just the first step I took in trying to identify instances of the use of anarthrous nouns and the verb ειμι. I figured I was complicating things to put the verb in there right away. Since I couldn't get the search to identify the anarthrous nouns reliably I didn't go any further. That comment was to say that if I do add a requirement for ειμι to be present or near  to the search, it will reduce the number of hits because not all the hits you got will have ειμι present.

Reducing the number of hits ought to make the manual part of the search easier. Your desire to have verse lists back, would also help, I agree.

I want to be able to demonstrate that "the Word was God" is the
correct translation in Jn 1:1, by doing some basic research rather than
just relying on the grammars -- JW's don't listen to grammars, but they
may listen, sometimes, to hard factual research - what I'd really like to see is if they
are consistent in their mistranslation or not, because, if they put the definite article in in some places then they'll have a harder time arguing that "the Word was a god" is the correct translation in this case. I also tho't this would be a good learning exercise in learning how to use the search features. So, far the latter has proven true even if the former remains to be seen.

I think I'm getting too tired to make sense anymore. If you still don't understand I'll try again after a good night's sleep. (Last night I was working morph search terms in my head for way too long to have a good night's sleep.)

Thanks again for your help.

Chris

Alan R. Craig said:

Dear Chris,

Perhaps you might want to also include in your search those clauses which have the anarthrous predicate nominative preceding the verb and subject noun (stated or implied), for this is the actual full syntax (word order) of the third clause of John 1:1.

I'd like to know of your findings: john1one@earthlink.net

Agape, Alan.

Alan,

I realize that is the full syntax of Jn 1:1. As I stated in my earlier post, I was starting out to leave out the presence of the verb as I had tried earlier with it and found I couldn't figure it out. So, I was trying what I thought would be an easier search. I'm still stumped as to how to do it, although I've got lots of ideas to work through in my earlier thread that Dave responded to and what he and Rob have said here. I just haven't time to do so.

Really my main goal is not to be able to refute JWs, but it is to become proficient at using the search tools in L4. I'm using this as a test case - it is probably too complicated for my level of understanding (I may try to find all the instances of God in the NIV -- that's probably my level of expertise at the moment.) I whined in the beta testing about my reason for upgrading in L3 was to be able to do some serious language study through searching, but I had not been able to master the Graphical search tool. I'm more determined to become proficient (note I have lowered my expectations of my ability) at searching in L4 as I find the tools more understandable. I'm hoping they are able to do the kind of things I want. I suspect this will invovle Syntax searches. I've got a steep learning curve to get to understand them. Hopefully, I will.

The issue of equative verbs and anarthrous nouns is something I've always been interested in, not for the sake of JW confrontations. Mormons are much more prevalent in my community and will be building a temple just half a mile from my house. I haven't met a JW in the five years I've lived here. I'm more interested in being able to dig into scripture to gain an understanding.

I'm not sure where you are coming from. Your initial page on your website doesn't help me know what position on all this you are coming from. I haven't time to investigate further. Your response to Dave is even vaguer.

If I am able to get the L4 to do the kind of search I'm trying to do, I'll post the steps I take, because I think it will help others to use this tool more effectively, not to deal with Arians in the 21st century.

Chris