Parsing vav conjunctions

[dowens76]

We currently parse vav consecutives using "HCv," but we use "w" for the sequential imperfect (i.e., wayyiqtol). For consistency's sake and for ease of parsing, I suggest we parse vav consecutives as "HCw."

[DavidTroidl]

Good point. But what about the terminology? If we are calling it sequential imperfect, then vav consecutive also seems out of place.

On 7/13/2013 2:20 AM, Daniel Owens wrote:

We currently parse vav consecutives using "HCv," but we use "w" for the sequential imperfect (i.e., wayyiqtol). For consistency's sake and for ease of parsing, I suggest we parse vav consecutives as "HCw."

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/openscriptures/morphhb/issues/5.

[dowens76]

This terminology question is difficult and is one that grammarians are debating. Here are the options:

Our Label	Aspectual Label (traditional)	Transliterated Label	Prefix/Suffix Label
imperfect	imperfect	yiqtol	prefixed
perfect	perfect	qatal	suffixed
sequential imperfect	imperfect with vav consecutive	wayyiqtol	prefixed sequential
sequential perfect	perfect with vav consecutive	weqatal	suffixed sequential

The transliterated labels are becoming more common, but they are just another way of talking about prefixed and suffixed forms.

I did a little looking, and Andersen-Forbes use the prefix/suffix system and have the four options. WHM uses a blending of the aspectual and transliterated labels, but only has perfect, imperfect, and wayyiqtol, not weqatal (probably because you cannot distinguish them by form but only by accent and/or context). WIVU is similar to WHM, but they also have weyiqtol, that is, a conjunctive vav plus the imperfect.

So these are our choices. What do you think? I would also love to hear Jesse's thoughts on this.

[dowens76]

As to the question about vav consecutive and the "sequential" language, I am not sure that there is a substantial conflict there. The vav consecutive is for "consecutive" verbs that are in a verb sequence. If we used the old "vav conversive" language that might be another issue, but no one uses that anymore because it is not accurate.

My own preference would be to leave things as-is, or perhaps add "(wayyiqtol)" after "sequential imperfect" in the morphology codes page just to make it clearer to those used to the transliterated label.

But either way, we are simply identifying forms with a code, so the terminology can be adjusted as needed.

However, if we are to make this change, we should do it before I send the csv file to Darrell.

[jag3773]

I am happy with any of the 3 leftmost columns. I don't really like the Prefix/Suffix language for identification purposes. Daniel, I agree that the transliterated labels are becoming more common.

As you suggest, Daniel, I think it would be most clear to keep the current labels but put the transliterated terms in parenthesis afterward, as in "sequential imperfect (wayyiqtol)". That way if someone is unclear on the terminology they can at least identify the form via the transliteration.

[DavidTroidl]

We are already calling it a conjunction, and it will appear with the sequential imperfect/perfect forms of the verb. How about if we just call it sequential? This is suggestive, and distinguishes it from a regular conjunction.

David

-----Original Message----- From: Daniel Owens notifications@github.com To: openscriptures/morphhb morphhb@noreply.github.com Cc: David Troidl DavidTroidl@aol.com Sent: Sun, Jul 14, 2013 2:23 am Subject: Re: [morphhb] Parsing vav conjunctions (#5)

This terminology question is difficult and is one that grammarians are debating. Here are the options:

Our Label Aspectual Label (traditional) Transliterated Label Prefix/Suffix Label

imperfect imperfect yiqtol prefixed

perfect perfect qatal suffixed

sequential imperfect imperfect with vav consecutive wayyigtol prefixed sequential

sequential perfect perfect with vav consecutive weqatal suffixed sequential

The transliterated labels are becoming more common, but they are just another way of talking about prefixed and suffixed forms. I did a little looking, and Andersen-Forbes use the prefix/suffix system and have the four options. WHM uses a blending of the aspectual and transliterated labels, but only has perfect, imperfect, and wayyiqtol, not weqatal (probably because you cannot distinguish them by form but only by accent and/or context). WIVU is similar to WHM, but they also have weyiqtol, that is, a conjunctive vav plus the imperfect. So these are our choices. What do you think? I would also love to hear Jesse's thoughts on this. — Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[dowens76]

I had to chew on this for a minute because I do not see this term used much elsewhere (though see http://ancienthebrewgrammar.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/verbalsequences-sbl2011.pdf, p. 1), but I think that may be the best way to go. It keeps our terminology neutral as to the semantic value of the vav and whether it "changes" the semantics of the verb conjugation. It simply signals that it is part of a verb sequence and is pointed differently from the normal copulative vav.

In that case should the options for parsing the vav be:

Cc - copulative vav (including conjunctive, disjunctive, and epexegetical uses) Cs - sequential vav (aka vav consecutive, vav relative, etc.)

I wonder if for terminology, we should make use of parentheses to avoid confusion, as above, and then do as Jesse and I have proposed for the verb conjugation:

sequential imperfect (wayyiqtol) sequential perfect (weqatal)

Any additional thoughts?

I would like to nail the codes down and get the data I have been working on into the database soon, if we can. I think the terminology could change.

[DavidTroidl]

This all started because you wanted to make Cv into Cw, to agree with the use of w on the verb, for the sequential imperfect. Now you're proposing Cs, which agrees with nothing.

My vote goes for simplicity. And if we're not changing for the sake of agreement, why change at all? If you want to expand on the uses of the conjunctions, it would probably be better to put that in the help file. In fact, that may not be a bad idea in general, if you have insights on the parsing that may not be obvious to everyone involved. I tried to cover the mechanical aspects, but you're far better versed in Hebrew that I am. The file is simple HTML, and can be easily expanded.

David

-----Original Message----- From: Daniel Owens notifications@github.com To: openscriptures/morphhb morphhb@noreply.github.com Cc: David Troidl DavidTroidl@aol.com Sent: Mon, Jul 15, 2013 9:59 pm Subject: Re: [morphhb] Parsing vav conjunctions (#5)

I had to chew on this for a minute because I do not see this term used much elsewhere (though see http://ancienthebrewgrammar.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/verbalsequences-sbl2011.pdf, p. 1), but I think that may be the best way to go. It keeps our terminology neutral as to the semantic value of the vav and whether it "changes" the semantics of the verb conjugation. It simply signals that it is part of a verb sequence and is pointed differently from the normal copulative vav. In that case should the options for parsing the vav be: Cc - copulative vav (including conjunctive, disjunctive, and epexegetical uses) Cs - sequential vav (aka vav consecutive, vav relative, etc.) I wonder if for terminology, we should make use of parentheses to avoid confusion, as above, and then do as Jesse and I have proposed for the verb conjugation: sequential imperfect (wayyiqtol) sequential perfect (weqatal) Any additional thoughts? I would like to nail the codes down and get the data I have been working on into the database soon, if we can. I think the terminology could change. — Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[dowens76]

Just trying to consider the possibilities and be responsive to your ideas. Let's stick with Cw. I will consider this closed.