Many thanks to Brill for providing me with a copy of Stéphanie J Bakker’s The Noun Phrase in Ancient Greek: A Functional Analysis of the Order and Articulation of NP Constituents in Herodotus (ASCP 15; Leiden: Brill, 2009).

I actually received it a couple weeks ago, but I’ve been too busy to post lately. I’m about half way through the book thus far and have thoroughly enjoyed it. The first half of the book is a discussion of word order within the noun phrase and the second half deals with the function of the Greek article within the noun phrase. Part II is particularly excellent and unmatched in the literature on Ancient Greek. You can expect a full two or three part review probably toward the end of December or early January.

Wow, this is a great book.

As someone who has a highly vested interest in syntax databases, I’m excited to hear David Lang say that Syntax databases will be coming to the next version of Accordance.

I will be giving a presentation at BibleTech: 2010 on the very subject of Syntax databases currently titled “Greek Syntax Databases: Retrospect & Prospects” in which I’ll examine, compare and critique the two currently available syntax databases: Opentext.org & Cascadia Syntax Graphs and then also (hopefully) present some of my own work on representing Greek syntax. Currently the abstract isn’t yet up, but this is a good summary. I’ve been hoping to do something like this for some time, so I’m looking forward to the conference. Much of my presentation has been brewing for at least 14 months, though very little has showed up here on my blog.

I definitely look forward to seeing what Accordance has to offer when they release their next version and may very well consider looking into getting it if I like what I see.

…and I’m always willing to do a review copy…

This is definitely not about Greek, but I do know that there are readers out there who would be quite interested in this:

A COMPREHENSIVE INPUT METHOD FOR CLASSICAL SANSKRIT

It’s currently available for Mac & Windows.

So if you’ve desperately wanted to type in Sanskrit, but haven’t had the tools, now’s your chance!

Eisenbrauns currently has the hottest price on Fanning’s Verbal Aspect.

Though both require relative clauses to begin with a relative pronoun, Greek and English are typologically distinct in that one employs the pronoun with the gap strategy (English) and the other only needs the pronoun (Greek): a man who Chris saw [GAP] vs. τὸ ποτήριον ὃ ἐγὼ μέλλω πίνειν (the cup that I am about to drink [no gap]).

The English Gap is implicitly necessary for our processing of the grammatical relation of relative pronouns (in this case the Object relation), whereas in Greek, grammatical relations are marked by morphology* rather than structural relations/word order.

*This is not to say that English doesn’t have some morphological marking occurring on it’s pronouns, but this morphology is not the central marker of grammatical relations. Grammatical relations are centrally marked by structural position within the clause. Hence when English speakers hear relative clauses they consciously notice the Gap position where the Object would typically appear.

The closest in 2009 edition (A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint) that Muraoka gets to defining κεφαλή as referring to a position of authority is this:

Definition #4: he who or that which plays a leading role.

And even then, the context of his entry makes it clear that “leading” refers to prominence not authority. The full entry for this sense looks like this:

First, note that “in a societal group” is considered as questionable by Muraoka (the “?”).

Let’s look at these cited examples more closely:

Numbers 1:2: Λάβετε ἀρχὴν πάσης συναγωγῆς υἱῶν Ισραηλ κατὰ συγγενείας αὐτῶν κατ̓ οἴκους πατριῶν αὐτῶν κατὰ ἀριθμὸν ἐξ ὀνόματος αὐτῶν κατὰ κεφαλὴν αὐτῶν, πᾶς ἄρσην

The Hebrew text reads, “head by head,” which the LXX translates as “κατὰ κεφαλὴν αὐτῶν.” And this may very well be a reasonable Greek translation of the Hebrew: “by their heads,” as in count them by their heads. And even if it refers to “heads of families,” is the emphasis on “heads of families” as leaders of families or “heads of families” as representatives of families? Which would be more likely with regard to a census?

Numbers 1:20 is identical to this.

Deuteronomy 28:13

καταστήσαι σε κύριος ὁ θεός σου εἰς κεφαλὴν καὶ μὴ εἰς οὐράν, καὶ ἔσῃ τότε ἐπάνω καὶ οὐκ ἔσῃ ὑποκάτω, ἐὰν ἀκούσῃς τῶν ἐντολῶν κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ σου, ὅσα ἐγὼ ἐντέλλομαί σοι σήμερον φυλάσσειν καὶ ποιεῖν

Here the context refers to Israel position among the nations. If they obey him, they will be the head (εἰς κεφαλὴν) not the tail (μὴ εἰς οὐράν). No authority here. Just Head/Body imagery. This image returns in 43-44:

ὁ προσήλυτος, ὅς ἐστιν ἐν σοί, ἀναβήσεται ἐπὶ σὲ ἄνω ἄνω, σὺ δὲ καταβήσῃ κάτω κάτω, 44 οὗτος δανιεῖ σοι, σὺ δὲ τούτῳ οὐ δανιεῖς, οὗτος ἔσται κεφαλή, σὺ δὲ ἔσῃ οὐρά.
The foreigner who is among you will go up against you, very high over you, but you will be brought down, very low. He will lend to you, but to him, you will not lend. He will be the head, but you will be the tail.

Authority? Or Social Status? Definitely the latter.

Isaiah 9:14: καὶ ἀφεῖλεν κύριος ἀπὸ Ισραηλ κεφαλὴν καὶ οὐράν, μέγαν καὶ μικρὸν ἐν μιᾷ ἡμέρᾳ, 14 πρεσβύτην καὶ τοὺς τὰ πρόσωπα θαυμάζοντας( αὕτη ἡ ἀρχή) καὶ προφήτην διδάσκοντα ἄνομα( οὗτος ἡ οὐρά).
And the Lord will cut off from Israel the head and the tail, great and small in one day, elders and the τοὺς τὰ πρόσωπα θαυμάζοντας [?] (these are the head) and the prophets teaching falsely (these are the tail).

This one is a little more difficult – and I’m not sure how to translate τοὺς τὰ πρόσωπα θαυμάζοντας (literally: those who marvel before faces??? Not sure.). In any case, considering that “leader” is not a natural Greek meaning for the word and there’s nothing explicit in the text that would suggest “leader,” I’ll default against it for this one. But as always, comments on this one are welcome.

Isaiah 19:15: καὶ οὐκ ἔσται τοῖς Αἰγυπτίοις ἔργον, ὃ ποιήσει κεφαλὴν καὶ οὐράν, ἀρχὴν καὶ τέλος.
And there is no work for the Egyptians that they can do – head or tail, beginning or end.

Actually, this verse is rather suggestive that κεφαλὴ could potentially mean “beginning,” which is suspiciously similar to “source.” Semantically speaking, it’s only a very small metaphorical step.

Psalm 17:44 ῥύσῃ με ἐξ ἀντιλογιῶν λαοῦ, καταστήσεις με εἰς κεφαλὴν ἐθνῶν, λαός, ὃν οὐκ ἔγνων, ἐδούλευσέν μοι,
You will deliver me from the arguments of the people. You will appoint me as head of nations; a people whom I did not know, served me.

I’d say that this is our best candidate for “leader” we’ve seen yet, but thus far, one out of seven isn’t that great.

Psalm 117:22: λίθον, ὃν ἀπεδοκίμασαν οἱ οἰκοδομοῦντες, οὗτος ἐγενήθη εἰς κεφαλὴν γωνίας
A stone that the builders rejected, this became as the head of the corner

Nope, nothing here. I’m not even sure why it’s listed in the “in a societal group” section…

This marks a distinct change from the 2002 edition of the lexicon, which looked like this:

What do you think? Is the change for the better or worse? Why?

What citations would you have included here that he leaves out?

I love the new feature in Logos 4 called, “Clippings,” which basically makes it possible to gather content from a variety of books in the same place. As a result, I’ve developed in one location a variety of discussions of the Greek Verb.

Here’s what it looks like:

By clicking on the spot I’ve highlighted, you create a new clipping:

Ignoring the very poorly written quality of my annotation (it’s hard to write with a mouse), you can see what it’s possible to add emphasis with bold, italics, or underlining in your clippings after you’ve created a new Clippings File.

But more importantly is the fact that you can then add notes and comments to the clipping itself:

I’ve gone through about a dozen grammars like this so far. Some are better than others. Swetnam on Aspect is pretty good. My biggest concern is that his highly unusual use of terminology is only going to confuse students in the long run who continue their Greek studies. And for that reason, I wouldn’t recommend his particular discussion. Anyway, that’s beside the point. We’re talking about a software feature, not a grammatical category that’s only caused confusion over the past 20 decades.

Other cool features of “Clippings” include the ability to instantly get bibliographic info. If you click here:

The Clipping “flips around” and you see this:

And you can choose whatever style you want – though sometimes there are still issues to fix, but either way, the information is still there for your citation already.

Also, text formatting is easily available for both your notes as well as the clipping itself:

And these follow the typical shortcuts: ctrl-b for Bold, ctrl-i for italics, etc.

Finally, it’s possible to create multiple collections of clippings depending on what you’re working on.

And then name it whatever you want:

New Clippings Documents are also available via the File Menu:

So cool and so helpful for collecting and annotating your information.

Eerdmans just published:

Translating the New Testament: Text, Translation, Theology
Series: McMaster New Testament Studies
Stanley E. Porter (editor), Mark J. Boda (editor)

And I’m seriously considering requesting a review copy — though Eerdmans seems to be much more picky about who it sends review copies to. But I’ll probably give it a try.

At this point though, I’ll taking a rather standoff-ish stance regarding the book.It’s a book on translation. Right?

So why aren’t there any professional translators in the list of contributors.

Barbara Aland
Mark J. Boda
Philip Comfort
Alain Gignac
Edith M. Humphrey
Luke Timothy Johnson
Richard N. Longenecker
Matthew Brook O’Donnell
Stanley E. Porter
Maurice A. Robinson
Elsa Tamez
Francis Watson
Khiok-Khng (K. K.) Yeo

We’ve got theologians, text critics, NT scholars, OT scholars, but not translators. There is not a single scholar on this list whose central academic specialty is translation. Why couldn’t Mildred Larson have contributed? Ernst-August Gutt? Katherine Barnwell? John Callow? Peter Silzer? Ronald Sim? Peter Unseth? Ernst Wendland? Catherine Rountree?

Yeah, you get the idea.

There are a variety of reasons why the English Perfect and the Greek Perfect must be distinguished in spite of their shared name and similarities.

Greek students are generally taught to use their intuition in terms of deciding whether to translate a Greek perfect with an English perfect or with an English present. But rarely (ever?) is there any discussion of how these two grammatical forms differ in their usage in a cross-linguistic sense. That is, the English Perfect can be used in the context X where the Greek Perfect would be infelicitous or ungrammatical.

Well today, I’m going to give you at least one way that I found about two weeks ago (I had to search for it to find it again). This assumes that the Greek of Joshua is relatively close enough to natural Greek that this is a valid usage. I haven’t had time to check other texts.

Joshua 13:8: ταῖς δὲ δύο φυλαῖς καὶ τῷ ἡμίσει φυλῆς Μανασση, τῷ Ρουβην καὶ τῷ Γαδ, ἔδωκεν Μωυσῆς ἐν τῷ πέραν τοῦ Ιορδάνου κατ̓ ἀνατολὰς ἡλίου, δέδωκεν αὐτὴν Μωυσῆς ὁ παῖς κυρίου…
But to the two tribes and the half tribe of Manasseh, Reuben and Gad, Moses gave (an inheritance to them) in the land beyond the Jordan eastward. Moses the servant of the Lord gave them …

From there, it goes on to list the lands they received. What’s striking about this. Well for one, we see the Perfect’s move toward the Aorist, but we also see a significant way in which the Greek Perfect is very, very different from the English Perfect.

Moses is dead. Moses was dead when the book was written and Moses was dead when the events described here in chapter 13 transpired (assuming for the sake of argument they did – this is a linguistics blog not a history blog). The English perfect cannot be used with a subject the speaker knows to be deceased. The sentence:

*Moses the Lord’s servant gave them X.

is not felicitous in English.

And that, my friends, is one way in which the Greek and English Perfects are different. This sort of example is relatively easy to recognize intuitively when dong translation, but it is still helpful to recognize and understand the reason why you’ve used the English past perfective verb “gave” instead of the perfect. And that’s what I’m interested in here. The why of things.

UPDATE:

There is a pragmatic felicity condition on the use of the perfect: the subject of a Perfect sentence must be in a position to receive the participant property. Perfect sentences are infelicitous when this is not met. In the following well-known example the person referred to by the subject NP is not alive at the RT [Reference Time]. Consider (20), uttered in 1989.

(20) Einstein has lived in Princeton.

This sentence is grammatical but infelicitous when uttered at a time after the death of Eisten (Jespersen 1931:60), Chomsky (1970:85). We explain this in terms of the participant property. Einstein cannot bear the participant property in 1989, the time of the utterance of (20), and so it is pragmatically impossible to ascribe it to him. this is the force of the example. The felicity requirement, then, is reoughly as in (21):

(21) Felicity condition for the present Perfect
The person to which the subject nounphrase [sic] refers must be pragmatically able to bear the property ascribed to them.

The notion of ‘Current Relevant’ is sometimes invoked to explain the infelicity of sentences like this. (Jesphersen 1931: 47, 57, et seq; McCoard 1978, ch. 2).

Carlota Smith, The Parameter of Aspect (2nd ed.; Studies in Linguistics & Philosphy 43; Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic, 1997), 108.

Also, I should note that an English Past Perfect, which is traditionally associated with the Greek Pluperfect would also be acceptable here: Moses had given…

Today is a day that I have been waiting for quite some time:

LOGOS 4

Over the past few months, Logos has been kind enough to allow me to participate in the private beta testing of their (formerly) forthcoming version of their library system.

And let me tell you, it has been exciting.

The new version changes just about everything. And it’s for the good.

• The new interface is clean and simple.
• Window management has been completely revolutionized.
• Library management is less time consuming & more feature rich.
• New language tools have been developed & old ones have been redesigned.
• New resources & new library collections have been released with new content — including several resources that make me less interested in investing in another piece of software (e.g. my own collection now has Swete’s The Old Testament in Greek According to the Septuagint including the apparatus).

Interface & Window Management:

The basic interface now consists of three basic icons & three drop down menus in the top left corner:

“Home”, “Library”, & “Search” – all of which are rather self-explanatory. And “File” consists have various syntax searches, notes, visual filters, clippings, etc. that you might create as you go along. Under “Guides” we have the ever reliable passage guide, exegetical guide, & word study guide. All of which have received a nice face lift;

Organizing Windows has improved in some incredible ways. For one, it’s now possible to simple drag windows around and they resize to a highlighted area:

But probably the most exciting thing is the fact that now windows can be separated from the central program window:

Which then results in:

This definitely makes Logos 4 much easier to work with when using multiple programs at the same time compared to Logos 3 – or using multiple monitors (which I would love to have, but don’t).

Finally, had you set up your windows in a certain way a week ago that you want to go back to? Didn’t save it? Can’t remember exactly what it was? Well, Layouts has changed all of that:

There’s a reason though. Anyway, it is now possible go back and pick out a particular layout that you had used a few days before, rename it, and save it as your own. Currently, I have four such layouts. Why two Layouts with virtually the same name? Well, it’s a long story.

The Library

With Version 4, we can now both tag and rate the books in our libraries. Note that haven’t spent too much time ranking books –- Swanson’s dictionary is gets two stars. That’s not because it’s bad, just that it’s not what I would want. It’s a great dictionary for a quick gloss, but I’m very, very rarely interested in a quick gloss. Just want to put a plug in here for the slow, detail reading of lexical entries of full-fledged lexicons like BDAG, LSJ, GELS, & L&N. It gets two stars instead of one because it’s still far superior than Strongs.

Ah, but now we come to the interesting stuff in the library: new resources. Now what follows, as I understand it minimally requires the Original Languages Library, though you will need to go look at Logos’ website to double check on that. And you may have noticed it in a screen shot above:

We finally have something to compete with (and absolutely crush!) Opentext.org’s database. These are the same trees that Andi Wu & Randall Tan discussed at International SBL this past year, as well as at BibleTech:2009 (where there’s also a PDF & mp3 available for download).

It’s doesn’t do everything. But it’s a massive leap in the right direction. For one, unlike Opentext.org, Cascadia actually recognizes that there are more than four types of constituents (Predicate, Subject, Complement, & Adjunct). Unfortunately, the treatment of discontinuous phrases is just about the same and needs work. But Cascadia brings a lot to the table:

• Actual Phrase Structure
• More Clause Types – the inclusion of “Verb Elided Clause” as a clause type is incredibly important – especially for Paul.
• Recognition that, semantically speaking, copulas (e.g. εἰμί) are not predicates.

Here’s what it looks like in action:

Now I’ve only been able to search using this new database for about a month now, but I definitely like what I have seen, generally speaking. More than anything, I’ve appreciated being able to do the same search using both Cascadia and Opentext.org together and compare the search results.

For example, ditransitive clauses have had my curiosity off and on for some time now, so I constructed this search in Cascadia using the new and improved Syntax Search Dialog (It’s similar to the old one, but now you can drag and drop, which makes it easier to use and is so cool):

And essentially the same search in Opentext.org:

The results were rather interesting. Opentext received more hits:

The first two in Matthew aren’t ditransitive in Cascadia because they both use copulas. Thus, it is the initial adjective that receives the Predicate Function rather than the verb. An adjective cannot be an Object if it is the semantic predicate of the clause.

Acts 2:39 is not ditransitive in Cascadia because Opentext.org has incorrectly annotated ἂν as a Complement, which it very much is not. And Acts 25:27 has the rather semantically empty, δοκέω, and thus the semantic predicate of the clause is ἄλογον.

Finally, 2 Corinthians 9:1 is not ditransitive in Cascadia, again, because the verb of the clause is a copula.

So why did I go through all of this?

Well, for one, we finally have a second voice beside Opentext.org that provides an extremely beneficial balance & check for determining what the syntax of the text actually is. Of the five differences in this search, four of the were the result of Opentext.org’s simplicity (which, granted, at times is a good thing). But this search also revealed a tagging mistake in Opentext as well. Doing quality research is always going to be dependent upon the quality of the data we use. And now we have a significantly easier way to confirming what is the accurate syntactic annotation.

There is more to do in Greek syntax, of course, but I’ll leave that for another time. I’m planning on putting in another proposal to BibleTech:2010 on this very topic.

I’ll leave you with this: the preface from the Cascadia graphs, just to give you an idea of where they came from:

The Cascadia Syntax Graphs of the New Testament is derived from a new dynamic treebank project developed by the Asia Bible Society. The Greek Syntactic Treebank Project is built on the basis of a computer-readable Greek grammar, with the syntactic trees (graphs) directly generated by a parser. Manual checking and corrections are stored as data in a knowledge base to guide the parser. The syntax trees (graphs) are dynamically generated from the latest version of the grammar and knowledge base, which enables continual organic improvement and growth as the grammar and knowledge base are maintained and updated.

We humbly present this preliminary version of the syntax graphs to users of Logos version 4 and look forward to improving and expanding it in the future.

Randall Tan
Andi Wu
November, 2009

Andi Wu and Randall K. Tan, Cascadia Syntax Graphs of the New Testament (Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009).

There is much, much more to say, but I hope I’ve at least given you something to whet your appetite for the time being. Logos 4 is good enough that It’ll be replacing Logos 3 for me. Most definitely.

By the way, did I mention that as of version 4, my entire library is now indexed (which times some time, but is definitely worth it) and I can search my 2000 books in mere seconds for anything?

The Mac version of Logos 4 is in Alpha testing as we speak and will be have complete parity with the Windows version. That’s right, Mac users, you haven’t been ignored.

And did I mention at all Logos 4 for iPhone & iPod Touch is part of the deal?

Be sure to head over to LOGOS 4 to get the whole scoop and learn about new notes, clippings, handouts, editable passage, exegetical, & word study guides (or you can now create your own!). There’s so much that I could have shared, but I wanted to focus on the things that matter to me. So go, check it out: LOGOS 4.

Notes:

• All screenshots are illustrative. Resources shown may not be included in Logos 4 base packages – i.e. you need at least the Original Languages Library for either Opentext.org or Cascadia.
• Upgrade discounts are available for existing customers.

Other Reviews thus far:

Ricoblog,

Reuben Gomez

Steve Runge’s got a bit too.

Joe Miller

Thomas Black

Adam Couturier

Robert Pavich

Ken Morris

Chris Roberts