Research the part of speech of numerals

Currently we are parsing numerals as adjectives because they modify (i.e., count) nouns and secondarily can be substantival adjectives. However, this has not sit well with me as I have parsed them. It seemed an idiosyncratic way of parsing (though originally it may have been my suggestion), so I did a little research.

Among lexica (in order of publication):

BDB parses numerals as nouns.
HALOT/Holladay do not specify part of speech.
Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages: Hebrew, identifies them as "numerals."

The Westminster Hebrew Morphology parses them simply as numerals.

Among grammars (in order of publication):

Gesenius, Kautzsch, Cowley, Hebrew Grammar, §97, §98, treats them under the broad category of nouns but in their own major sections at the end of the noun chapter. It is unclear how Gesenius would parse them, but he discusses them in a manner somewhat similar to adjectives, though his discussion deals with the historical development of the numeral's relationship to the noun it counts.
Waltke and O'Connor, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, §15, treats numerals separate from nouns or adjectives, though directly following adjectives.
Van der Merwe et al., A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar, §37.1: "Numerals express numbers and are dealt with as a separate word type on that basis." They treat them under nouns, but they also treat adjectives and pronouns under nouns.
Joüon, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (2006 ed.), §100.1a: "The nouns denoting number are in origin either substantives or adjectives, but all of them, to varying degrees, now possess a mixed character, partly substantival and partly adjectival."

In view of the ambiguity of numerals (as adjectival and substantival) and the general trend to treat them separately as numerals (as in van der Merwe et al.), I suggest we parse them separately as numerals rather than adjectives.

I looked up ehad, 259, and both BDB and Strong list it as an adjective.
TWOT and NASB don't list parts of speech separately, though TWOT says: This word occurs 960 times as a noun, adjective, or adverb. BDB also lists it as the indefinite article.

On 7/13/2013 1:10 AM, Daniel Owens wrote:

Currently we are parsing numerals as adjectives because they modify (i.e., count) nouns and secondarily can be substantival adjectives. However, others parse them as nouns. We need to research this issue more thoroughly.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/openscriptures/morphhb/issues/3.

To take one example, in Genesis 1:5, day one is clearly not just one day. The interlinear I'm using, which claims to be quoting the WHM, has a separate part of speech for cardinal numbers. Ordinal numbers, on the other hand, would certainly function as adjectives. The BDB listing, from p. 25, for ehad, lists adj.num. as the part of speech. Our form Ac agrees nicely with that. For the sake of simplicity, and consistency, I would rather stick with the adjective parsing.

Apparently I did not successfully post my response to this. From memory, אֶחַד is the only numeral that BDB lists as an adjective. When you look at שָׁלֹשׁ, as an example, it is a noun. I think the reason אֶחַד is different from the other numerals is that it functions in so many different ways. Witness the diversity of views about how to translate it in Deut 6:4. So using אֶחַד as an example does not get us very far.

How do we resolve it? If it were just me, I would parse them as numerals given the comments from the grammars quoted in my post above. Numerals are somewhere in between nouns and adjectives.

However, I think treating all numerals as adjectives has the advantage of simplicity (it does not add a part of speech). It is a little idiosyncratic to parse them as adjectives, but an argument can be made that they modify nouns (by counting them) and secondarily function as substantives, as do other adjectives. Therefore we can parse them as adjectives.

Whatever we decide, we need to include it as a part of an FAQ, perhaps at the bottom of the schema, to guide people in parsing.

It's hard for me to imagine using a numeral as a noun, unless you're saying something like "One is the loneliest number," where you're specifically referring to the number itself. Something like, "the eleven were in the upper room," is a substantive. Still, just because Adjective is the only thing that lists Cardinal Number and Ordinal Number types, doesn't mean that that is the only possibility for parsing numbers. If a parser finds a number functioning as a noun, or an adverb, it can certainly be parsed that way. We are not after some rigid universal system, that whenever you see a certain form of a word, it has to be parsed exactly the same way. Context is what makes this whole project necessary, beyond what we could do by your mass parsing, or my incomplete attempts at an automated system.

The idea about annotating the parsing schema is a good one. It is already linked from the Help file, and that would centralize all the notes specific to parsing. There are three places where we already have commentary: 1) The notes under parts of speech; 2) After all the specific listings, where it says "One language code ..." 3) At the end, where it specifies the license. If you locate your comments there, it would be best for the flow of the document.

David

On 7/16/2013 11:15 PM, Daniel Owens wrote:

Apparently I did not successfully post my response to this. From memory, אֶחַד is the only numeral that BDB lists as an adjective. When you look at שָׁלֹשׁ, as an example, it is a noun. I think the reason אֶחַד is different from the other numerals is that it functions in so many different ways. Witness the diversity of views about how to translate it in Deut 6:4. So using אֶחַד as an example does not get us very far.

How do we resolve it? If it were just me, I would parse them as numerals given the comments from the grammars quoted in my post above. Numerals are somewhere in between nouns and adjectives.

However, I think treating all numerals as adjectives has the advantage of simplicity (it does not add a part of speech). It is a little idiosyncratic to parse them as adjectives, but an argument can be made that they modify nouns (by counting them) and secondarily function as substantives, as do other adjectives. Therefore we can parse them as adjectives.

Whatever we decide, we need to include it as a part of an FAQ, perhaps at the bottom of the schema, to guide people in parsing.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/openscriptures/morphhb/issues/3#issuecomment-21089526.

I know, conceptually it makes less sense that people would parse
numerals as nouns, but they commonly do. I do not have a good
example off hand. But if we want flexibility to parse numerals as
nouns if the context demands, then the Adjective types related to
cardinal numbers should also included under noun types, right?
DanielOn 7/17/13 8:53 PM, David Troidl wrote:
It's hard for me to imagine using a numeral as a noun,
  unless you're 
  saying something like "One is the loneliest number," where you're

  specifically referring to the number itself. Something like, "the

  eleven were in the upper room," is a substantive. Still, just
  because 
  Adjective is the only thing that lists Cardinal Number and Ordinal

  Number types, doesn't mean that that is the only possibility for
  parsing 
  numbers. If a parser finds a number functioning as a noun, or an 
  adverb, it can certainly be parsed that way. We are not after some

  rigid universal system, that whenever you see a certain form of a
  word, 
  it has to be parsed exactly the same way. Context is what makes
  this 
  whole project necessary, beyond what we could do by your mass
  parsing, 
  or my incomplete attempts at an automated system.
  The idea about annotating the parsing schema is a good one. It is

  already linked from the Help file, and that would centralize all
  the 
  notes specific to parsing. There are three places where we already
  have 
  commentary:
  1) The notes under parts of speech;
  2) After all the specific listings, where it says "One language
  code ..."
  3) At the end, where it specifies the license.
  If you locate your comments there, it would be best for the flow
  of the 
  document.
  David
  On 7/16/2013 11:15 PM, Daniel Owens wrote:
  >
  > Apparently I did not successfully post my response to this.
  From 
  > memory, אֶחַד is the only numeral that BDB lists as an
  adjective. When 
  > you look at שָׁלֹשׁ, as an example, it is a noun. I think the
  reason אֶחַד 
  > is different from the other numerals is that it functions in
  so many 
  > different ways. Witness the diversity of views about how to
  translate 
  > it in Deut 6:4. So using אֶחַד as an example does not get us
  very far.
  >
  > How do we resolve it? If it were just me, I would parse them
  as 
  > numerals given the comments from the grammars quoted in my
  post above. 
  > Numerals are somewhere in between nouns and adjectives.
  >
  > However, I think treating all numerals as adjectives has the
  advantage 
  > of simplicity (it does not add a part of speech). It is a
  little 
  > idiosyncratic to parse them as adjectives, but an argument
  can be made 
  > that they modify nouns (by counting them) and secondarily
  function as 
  > substantives, as do other adjectives. Therefore we can parse
  them as 
  > adjectives.
  >
  > Whatever we decide, we need to include it as a part of an
  FAQ, perhaps 
  > at the bottom of the schema, to guide people in parsing.
  >
  > —
  > Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub 
  >

https://github.com/openscriptures/morphhb/issues/3#issuecomment-21089526.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

What I'm actually saying is that adjective remains the suggested way to parse numbers in general. On the other hand, if someone deems it better to list it as a common noun, or whatever, it shouldn't be rejected off hand. We can consider the merits of the proposed parsing.

Again, for the verification, we should have something of a standard to decide difficult cases. Any doubts can be discussed on the list, before making a final commitment. And we still have a digital text. Nothing is set in stone. Conflicts can be resolved.

So, for the initial stab, let's try to keep things as simple as possible. Then we can go from there.

David

On 7/17/2013 8:02 PM, Daniel Owens wrote:

I know, conceptually it makes less sense that people would parse numerals as nouns, but they commonly do. I do not have a good example off hand. But if we want flexibility to parse numerals as nouns if the context demands, then the Adjective types related to cardinal numbers should also included under noun types, right? DanielOn 7/17/13 8:53 PM, David Troidl wrote: It's hard for me to imagine using a numeral as a noun, unless you're saying something like "One is the loneliest number," where you're

specifically referring to the number itself. Something like, "the

eleven were in the upper room," is a substantive. Still, just because Adjective is the only thing that lists Cardinal Number and Ordinal

Number types, doesn't mean that that is the only possibility for parsing numbers. If a parser finds a number functioning as a noun, or an adverb, it can certainly be parsed that way. We are not after some

rigid universal system, that whenever you see a certain form of a word, it has to be parsed exactly the same way. Context is what makes this whole project necessary, beyond what we could do by your mass parsing, or my incomplete attempts at an automated system. The idea about annotating the parsing schema is a good one. It is

already linked from the Help file, and that would centralize all the notes specific to parsing. There are three places where we already have commentary: 1) The notes under parts of speech; 2) After all the specific listings, where it says "One language code ..." 3) At the end, where it specifies the license. If you locate your comments there, it would be best for the flow of the document. David On 7/16/2013 11:15 PM, Daniel Owens wrote:

Apparently I did not successfully post my response to this. From memory, אֶחַד is the only numeral that BDB lists as an adjective. When you look at שָׁלֹשׁ, as an example, it is a noun. I think the reason אֶחַד is different from the other numerals is that it functions in so many different ways. Witness the diversity of views about how to translate it in Deut 6:4. So using אֶחַד as an example does not get us very far.

How do we resolve it? If it were just me, I would parse them as numerals given the comments from the grammars quoted in my post above. Numerals are somewhere in between nouns and adjectives.

However, I think treating all numerals as adjectives has the advantage of simplicity (it does not add a part of speech). It is a little idiosyncratic to parse them as adjectives, but an argument can be made that they modify nouns (by counting them) and secondarily function as substantives, as do other adjectives. Therefore we can parse them as adjectives.

Whatever we decide, we need to include it as a part of an FAQ, perhaps at the bottom of the schema, to guide people in parsing.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub

https://github.com/openscriptures/morphhb/issues/3#issuecomment-21089526.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/openscriptures/morphhb/issues/3#issuecomment-21154418.

Okay, we can leave this as-is for the time being.

openscriptures / morphhb

Research the part of speech of numerals #3