ENESTERNISMENOI (Was: De-Inflection Software?)

Richard A. Stauch rstauch at charter.net
Sun Sep 22 16:22:27 EDT 2002


Hi Steve,

I can see we are beginning to generate more heat than light in this
thread. I suggest we drop the subtopic of whether such a tool would be
"good" or "bad." I believe we have expressed our differences pretty
well, and those who have not decided yet can do so for themselves. We
are also beginning to repeat ourselves, which has got to be boring for
those who don't care or have already made up their minds.

I don't see any reason why we cannot discuss ways to codify rules that
such a program would use, however. I suggest, for those interested, we
should start at the beginning: What does a scholar do first when he
attempts to decipher a word that is unfamiliar (we can start with the
word in the subject heading)? Besides the standard resources, what is
the first thing in the word itself to look for, or is it the context in
which the word is used that comes first?

I am thinking simply, just yet; one word at a time, though there is no
reason such software could not also handle phrases or even paragraphs.
The point right now is to outline fully what Steve has called the
"inefficient or outmoded" methodology. No good program can be useful
that does not really facilitate an existing, and working methodology.
This is how good software is written.

Hoping for the best,
Richard Allan Stauch
Long Beach, CA
http://www.rstauch.com
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steven Lo Vullo [mailto:slovullo at mac.com]
> Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2002 12:33 PM
> To: Biblical Greek
> Cc: 'Biblical Greek'
> Subject: [b-greek] RE: ENESTERNISMENOI (Was: De-Inflection Software?)
> 
> On Sunday, September 22, 2002, at 09:43 AM, Richard A. Stauch wrote:
> 
> > I didn't see anything wrong with Peter's analogy. It seemed quite
apt
> > to
> > me. I get your point, but I think it's weakened by an inchoate fear
> > that
> > someone out there might kid themselves about how much they really
know.
> > Take my word for it, or not, those people are out there, and will be
> > out
> > there no matter what tools they have available.
> 
> Well okay, since they are out there anyway, let's participate in their
> delusion.
> 
> > To say that someone could build a keyboard and thereby learn how to
> > type
> > quickly is preposterous PRIMA FACIE. You concede that point, then go
on
> > to say that the keyboard builder would at least be familiar with the
> > characters and punctuation of the language. Tell that to the Chinese
> > keyboard-factory workers in Taiwan. Just because someone has seen a
"J"
> >  character doesn't mean they know what it is, what it's called, or
how
> > to use it.
> 
> Peter clearly DID NOT have Chinese keyboard factory workers in mind.
> His contrast was between *building* and *typing quickly*, not between
> *building* and *ignorance of the alphabet*. This is just an attempt to
> reinterpret and salvage a bad analogy. He says, "This is no more true
> than the idea that a man who builds a keyboard can then type at 100
> words a minute," and, "you don't get the practice in typing naturally,
> just as a person who compiles and codifies grammatical information
does
> not develop the skill of natural recall."
> 
> Actually, you could use the analogy of the keyboard with its "practice
> in typing" to good effect. Just as no one will become proficient in
> typing without a basic knowledge of the keyboard and much practice in
> using it, so no one will become proficient in parsing without a
> fundamental knowledge of morphology and much practice identifying
> forms. The only way to actually understand the forms of words and
> identify them is to *learn* and *do*. Using a software program that
> spits out results is NOT learning and doing.
> 
> > Maybe this analogy would look better to you. If one could build a
car,
> > that wouldn't give one a license to drive. I am reminded of some of
the
> > "scholars" out there making names for themselves among the hoi
> > polloi-media types, who reach agenda-driven conclusions about
ancient
> > times and people with impunity. Some of my ideas may "disturb" you,
> > Steve, but I am much more disturbed by the "work" of the Jesus
Seminar
> > than I am by the prospect of a better tool.
> 
> Okay, I'll go with that one as long as you follow it to its logical
> conclusion. Just as building a car does not give one a license to
> drive, so creating parsing software does not give one a license to use
> it. Did I miss something here?
> 
> As for the Jesus Seminar, what is needed to combat that sort of thing
> is not an angry mob of ignorant villagers with nuclear bombs instead
of
> pitchforks, but a well-trained army disciplined in the fundamental
> skills needed for battle and thoroughly drilled in the strategies of
> war.
> 
> > Decades ago I applied myself to the effort of learning the keyboard
> > well
> > enough to "touch-type". I got my speed up to where I can keep up
with
> > my
> > own thoughts easily. That effort, I am convinced, helped me to learn
a
> > new keyboard layout for Greek. I can type a Greek text almost as
fast
> > as
> > I can in English. I didn't have a mentor, or a take a class, I did
it
> > on
> > my own. About 12 years ago, I began working for a warehouse company
> > that
> > had an AS/400 as its IT backbone. I had never seen or heard of one
> > before, but I applied myself to learning it. After a couple of years
I
> > had thoroughly revamped the applications, automating practically
> > everything, and interconnecting the office LAN with the midrange
> > machine. I proved my work saved the company tens of thousands of
> > dollars
> > per year, in part just by reducing my own hours. I didn't have a
mentor
> > or take a class for that either.
> >
> > I did it by learning to work smarter.
> >
> > I succeeded by producing results faster than the competition.
> >
> > Imagine if you could automate much of the process of translation.
Oh,
> > for a certainty, human eyes would still have to proof it, but the
> > majority of the work could be done in seconds! Even if one could
finish
> > the work in a tenth of the time it now takes, think of the things
one
> > could do with the rest of that time -- like interpretation.
> >
> > One might even find time to read a book on, say, logic.
> 
> Before deciding that the "old way" (actually learning the language
> before trying to use it) is inefficient and outmoded, try this: Give
> yourself six months to a year to study Greek intensively. After that
> time, read the GNT on a regular basis and see if you don't recognize
> word forms pretty readily. Then compare that with having to type every
> other word into a software program. Finally, report to the rest of us
> which is really the time-saver in the long run.
> 
> I'll leave for the rest to judge what is logical.
> ============
> 
> Steven R. Lo Vullo
> Madison, WI





More information about the B-Greek mailing list