Concordance including all the versions?

Tell us about interesting projects involving biblical Greek. Collaborative projects involving biblical Greek may use this forum for their communication - please contact jonathan.robie@ibiblio.org if you want to use this forum for your project.
Alan Bunning
Posts: 218
Joined: June 5th, 2011, 7:31 am
Contact:

Re: Concordance including all the versions?

Post by Alan Bunning » January 24th, 2016, 10:01 am

Jonathan Robie wrote:
Stephen Hughes wrote:
Alan Bunning wrote:2. Each word has now been identified to a lexical entry showing alternative forms, alternative spellings, misspellings, and errors. Alternative spellings allow for the rules αι = ε, οι = υ, ο = ω, ει = ι as well as some consonant substitutions, allowing for doubled consonants, etc. Misspellings are those words that go beyond these rules. Errors are mostly stray characters. The “correct” lexical form will then be identified based on its usage in the manuscripts. I already know that there are several places where every early manuscript is in agreement with how a word is spelled, and every modern critical text deviates from that. I have been very surprised at how different the orthography is compared to the middle ages Greek that I was taught. At first I was going to simply call the “correct” lexical form the form with the most word counts. But I realized that the large manuscripts (01-05) would simply skew the results to their spellings. So a better approach would be to let each manuscript “vote” as to how it thinks each word should be spelled. That, or I could let the vote occur on a word by word basis based on its column in the collation, and then tally the total votes for each word. Opinions?
Spelling is a convention that has come to be accepted. Grammars and dictionaries more or less adhere to it. If you deviate, you at least need to index to make things workable.
I agree. But if this is something people will be querying, you want to make it easy to find all uses of a given word, even though there are variant spellings, over a broad period of time. I think the best way to do that would be to provide the lemma and a normalized "dictionary" spelling in metadata, while maintaining the spelling of the given manuscript in the text per se:

Code: Select all

<word lemma="Ἰωάννης"  normalized="Ἰωάννης">ιωανηϲ</word>
Yes, that is essentially what I am doing. Whatever I determine to be the most "correct" lexical form in Koine Greek spelling will still be tied to all of the other forms. I am keeping all forms so that any of them could be found in a search.

Jonathan Robie
Posts: 3097
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: Concordance including all the versions?

Post by Jonathan Robie » January 24th, 2016, 10:11 am

Alan Bunning wrote:Yes, that is essentially what I am doing. Whatever I determine to be the most "correct" lexical form in Koine Greek spelling will still be tied to all of the other forms. I am keeping all forms so that any of them could be found in a search.
Excellent.
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/

ed krentz
Posts: 64
Joined: February 22nd, 2012, 5:34 pm
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Concordance including all the versions?

Post by ed krentz » January 24th, 2016, 12:09 pm

Please observe standard terminology. Youn are seeking to list all variant readings, not versions.

Version is the technical term for translations of the original text (i.e. the Greek) , e. g, Latin Armenian, Coptic, Syriac, etc. ;)
Edgar Krentz
Prof. Emeritus of NT
Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago

Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3332
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: Concordance including all the versions?

Post by Stephen Hughes » January 30th, 2016, 10:12 am

Alan Bunning wrote:
Alan Bunning wrote:απανπληθει, παμπληθει (erroneous “α”)
Stephen Huges wrote:Do you consider ἅπας and πᾶς variants of the same word, or different words? The common suffixes for exaggeration or emphasis are ὁλο-, παν- and τρισ-. I think that the word with the alpha on the front has the same meaning, and is used in the same place that word without is, so it is the same word. Cf. Aluminum and aluminium.
Good point! In that case the “α” is not erroneous.
I think that it is erroneous, but not an error that would affect intelligibility. The correct spelling is without the alpha. It is not worth making a dictionary entry till there are a few more examples of the word in use.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)

Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3332
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: Concordance including all the versions?

Post by Stephen Hughes » January 30th, 2016, 10:27 am

Jonathan Robie wrote:
προσεως, προθεσεως, GA-04, 1:12:04, http://cntr.t15.org/collation/0112.htm#011204
Hmmm, the morphology matches προσ·εάω, which is used in Acts 27:7.
I don't think it does match - perhaps προσεῶντος (gen.) would be προσεών in the nominative. Also the syntax of the verse (following τῆς) does not allow it.

ΝΒ: In that same verse, εφαγενουσ is misalligned. εφαγεν ουσ.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)

Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3332
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: Concordance including all the versions?

Post by Stephen Hughes » January 30th, 2016, 10:29 am

Stephen Hughes wrote:
Alan Bunning wrote:
Stephen Hughes wrote:Alan, may I ask, how did you classify ειν?
I am undecided what to do with it. Grenfell and Hunt have it as one word "τονειν" and then say it could be a corruption of "τον θν". Does "τονειν" have a meaning of its own?
There is no such word that I or LSJ knows of.
I think that a scribe somewhere in the transmission chain, who wrote the word saw a θ and then took it as ει and not θ. I assume that he honestly - ignorantly, but honestly believed that he was reading and copied. I agree with Stephen that what stands in the manuscript is not θ, but ει. But what is that and what to do with it?

I think that it can be recorded as τον ειν, cross-referenced to τὸν Θεὸν, and used as an example of scribal error. Not used as the basis for the discovery of a new word τονειν or ειν.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)

Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3332
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: Concordance including all the versions?

Post by Stephen Hughes » January 30th, 2016, 10:36 am

Alan Bunning wrote:Well for round 3, I looked at the lexical entries and they don’t seem to follow the rules, so I wondered if I don’t understand all of the rules, or if the lexical entries need to show other declensions, or if the lexical entries are fine and these are errors made by the scribes. As I am classifying these words, I want to have some level of comfort before I add an alternative declension to a lexical entry. The list of words in round 3 only appear once out of the 1.5 million words I have (with the exception of μοιχαλιας which appears twice) so I suppose and argument can be made that these are just errors. But then again, my set of words is limited to only New Testament words.

So what would probably be helpful is if you could tell me which of those words would can fit with the supplied lexical entry, and which should require an alternative declension, and which should be considered errors. Some of that may be subjective, but I would like a second opinion. I think there were one or two that I realized could fit with the supplied lexical entry after I posted it, but still wonder about the rest.
That is really a lot bigger of a task than it seems you have allowed for. The difference of dialects in the Koine and on into Medieval and Modern Greek is not a readily accessible or easily comprehensible field.

Even to make educated guesses will take some time to work through.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)

Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3332
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: Concordance including all the versions?

Post by Stephen Hughes » January 30th, 2016, 10:42 am

Alan Bunning wrote:αμαρτητος, αμαρτησαντος, GA-01, 6:05:16
There are 2 possibilities to deal with this. αμαρτησαντος as you have and αμαρτηματος.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)

Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3332
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: Concordance including all the versions?

Post by Stephen Hughes » January 30th, 2016, 11:49 am

Alan Bunning wrote:ανεχθεισης, ενεχθεισης, GA-04, 22:01:17
Although with also only one change (χ -> κ), εχθεισης could be taken as the second aorist participle (athematic) of ἐκτίθημι, viz. ἐκθεισης, and αν as the indefinite particle, the verse becomes something like this.
Λαβὼν γὰρ παρὰ θεοῦ πατρὸς τιμὴν καὶ δόξαν, φωνῆς ἂν ἐκθείσης αὐτῷ τοιᾶσδε ὑπὸ τῆς μεγαλοπρεποῦς δόξης,
Receiving therefore from God the father, glory and honour, a voice would have been explaining to him, the following things, You are ...
That is improbable, because the following verse has φωνὴν ... ἐνεχθεῖσαν, and the ἄν seems out of place.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)

Alan Bunning
Posts: 218
Joined: June 5th, 2011, 7:31 am
Contact:

Re: Concordance including all the versions?

Post by Alan Bunning » January 30th, 2016, 1:36 pm

Stephen Hughes wrote:
Alan Bunning wrote:Well for round 3, I looked at the lexical entries and they don’t seem to follow the rules, so I wondered if I don’t understand all of the rules, or if the lexical entries need to show other declensions, or if the lexical entries are fine and these are errors made by the scribes. As I am classifying these words, I want to have some level of comfort before I add an alternative declension to a lexical entry. The list of words in round 3 only appear once out of the 1.5 million words I have (with the exception of μοιχαλιας which appears twice) so I suppose and argument can be made that these are just errors. But then again, my set of words is limited to only New Testament words.

So what would probably be helpful is if you could tell me which of those words would can fit with the supplied lexical entry, and which should require an alternative declension, and which should be considered errors. Some of that may be subjective, but I would like a second opinion. I think there were one or two that I realized could fit with the supplied lexical entry after I posted it, but still wonder about the rest.
That is really a lot bigger of a task than it seems you have allowed for. The difference of dialects in the Koine and on into Medieval and Modern Greek is not a readily accessible or easily comprehensible field.

Even to make educated guesses will take some time to work through.
Well, the good news is that all of the other ~29000 words are already done and the lists that I posted were the only ones that I found troublesome (and some of them ended up not being so troublesome after all). I have since finished plodding through the remaining entries in the list on my own, making a judgement call one way or another. This is only step 1 of many more steps to come and I will work in any updates based on the input I receive here. So any additional insights you can provide are certainly welcome.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest