ἀνθ’ ὧν

[jonathanrobie]

Should ἀνθ’ ὧν be treated as a fixed expression? Currently, it is treated as follows:

<w morphId="42019044018" class="prep" role="prep" lemma="ἀντί">ἀνθ’</w>
<wg nodeId="420190440190080" class="cl" role="np">
       <w morphId="42019044019"
            class="pron"
            role="adv"
            lemma="ὅς"
            case="genitive"
            gender="neuter"
            number="plural">ὧν</w>

[jonathanrobie]

Opened a thread on this in B-Greek:

http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=2823

[rkjtan]

As to why ἀνθ’ ὧν is not treated as a fixed expression or as one word, the first thing to remember about the Greek trees is that it has been built on top of different sets of Greek editions & different sets of morphologies for those Greek texts. As far as possible, GBI did not change the morphologies involved. The preferred tactic for dealing with an apparent morphological error or inconvenient (not wrong necessarily, but not helpful for building the syntax tree, for example) morphological analysis is to add a node in the tree directly above the terminal node with the original morph to transform the categorization of a word & then to proceed to build the tree based on the new categorization in the added node. However, where a defensible tree can be built on the original morphology, GBI went ahead & did so, whether or not we would have preferred a different morphological analysis or a different way of representing the syntax. (Note: Because of transfers & adjustments between different Greek editions & different morphologies, some errors of transfer [correct tree for one version, but incorrect when transferred without change for another version] do happen, which we discover & fix from time to time.)

In the particular case of ἀνθ’ ὧν, it is unclear what the best way of representing it should be. With the morphology & word division being the way it is, what we did is to see an elided "these things": for [these things] with reference to which..., with the relative clause introduced by "with reference to which things" (genitive relative due to attraction to case of elided referent) taking the place of the elided τούτων. Of course, maybe it is best to see a fixed phrase ἀνθ’ ὧν = ἀντὶ τούτων ὅτι, as suggested in BDF §294, 4. If the morphology & word division are done in this alternative way, an alternative syntax tree that reflects this option could be more easily built.

It may be possible to build an alternative tree in this case, even given current constraints. Could you suggest an alternative way to build the syntax tree, given current constraints of morphology & word division, that would better represent the syntax in your opinion?