Biblical Hebrew Forum

[davedonnelly1 AT juno.com]

On Wed Jun 23 20:06:08 EDT 2010 ,
Jason Hare jaihare at gmail.com writes

Dave,

Because yod doesn't take a composite sheva.  
Dave adds"I know that fact about yods not taking Compound Shewa's"

You'd know that if you would invest more in Hebrew
 than the money it costs to buy grammars that sit on your shelf.  
Dave adds "I know that fact about yods  not taking Compound Shewa's"

Aside from the composite vs. simple sheva, 
the vowels normally placed on the Tetragrammaton
(though there are exceptions of course Dave adds: ( "because 6 different
variants of YHWH occur in the  Leningrad Codex of 1008-1010 A.D." )
are the same as the vowels on the word ???? with kamats in the final
syllable.

Jason Hare
Rehovot, Israel
_________________________________________________________________________
__

Jason,

If you believe that the vowels in Hebrew Word #3068 truly represent the
vowels of Adonai,
and that the Masoretes placed those particular vowels in to Hebrew Word
#3068 
to indicate to you and to Steve Miller that you were not to read  Hebrew
Word #3068 as  "Jehovah"
if Hebrew Word #3068 had actually occurred in Psalm:110:1, which of
course it didn't!!!!!! 
AND
to indicate to you and Steve Miller that you were not to read Hebrew Word
#3068  as  "Jehovah"
if Hebrew Word #3068 had actually occurred in Psalm:16:2, which of course
it didn't!!!!!! 

I assume that everyone here knows that six different variants of YHWH 
occur in the Leningrad Codex of 1008-1010 A.D. 

Jason,
Were you and Steve Miller following definite Hebrew Grammar rules, 
[that had been put in effect by the Masoretes,] 
when you read whatever variant of YHWH that occurred in Psalm 110:1 as
"Jehovah"
and 
when you read whatever variant of YHWH that occurred in Psalm 16:2 as
"Jehovah"

I assume that everyone here knows that  Hebrew Word #3068 
occurs in neither Psalm 110:1 nor in Psalm 16:2

SHOULD THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE BE DROPPED BECAUSE IT IS TOO HOT TO
HANDLE?????
OR
CAN THIS ISSUE BE EXPLAINED VERY EASILY USING SIMPLE HEBREW GRAMMAR RULES
THAT EVERYONE WHO NEEDS TO KNOW IS FULLY AWARE OF????


Dave Donnelly
 
____________________________________________________________
Penny Stock Jumping 2000%
Sign up to the #1 voted penny stock newsletter for free today!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4c22b6569bbd31e545st02duc
>From eric-inman AT comcast.net  Wed Jun 23 22:25:14 2010
Return-Path: <eric-inman AT comcast.net>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix, from userid 3002)
        id 933C24C113; Wed, 23 Jun 2010 22:25:13 -0400 (EDT)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on malecky
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,
        RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1
Received: from qmta15.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net
        (qmta15.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net [76.96.27.228])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFABD4C0C9
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Wed, 23 Jun 2010 22:25:09 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: from omta10.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.28])
        by qmta15.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast
        id ZdA11e0050cQ2SLAFeR965; Thu, 24 Jun 2010 02:25:09 +0000
Received: from EricPC ([71.195.30.149])
        by omta10.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast
        id ZeR61e00E3D2WLv8WeR7D3; Thu, 24 Jun 2010 02:25:08 +0000
From: "Eric Inman" <eric-inman AT comcast.net>
To: "'James Christian'" <jc.bhebrew AT googlemail.com>
References: <AANLkTikUyDHzDiiMr_I4v8BZou0rHCUI1bUgj_2SspMz AT mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikUyDHzDiiMr_I4v8BZou0rHCUI1bUgj_2SspMz AT mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 21:25:06 -0500
Message-ID: <A568B28B660C4E58825DF89503512D69@EricPC>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6002.18197
Thread-Index: AcsR+ztTCQ8jiKlaR/SeJAUuLn1DsABRQs1g
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.9
Cc: 'b-hebrew' <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] U-DOP was Generative Grammar
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Biblical Hebrew Forum <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 02:25:14 -0000

Hi Jim,
 
I read the papers and found them interesting.
 
I think the issue of non contiguous phrases is related to but different from
the issue of relative freedom of word order. Even though these papers made
it a point to address non contiguous phrases, I feel the techniques that
were used would still need to be modified if they were to be used on
(relatively) free word order languages.
 
To put it another way, a number of grammars and techniques are based on word
order and the part of speech of each word. In inflected languages (which I'm
assuming here to have greater freedom of word order), however, some of the
information that is provided by word order in non-inflected languages is
instead provided by inflectional affixes. Therefore grammars and techniques
that are based only on word order and part of speech are working with less
information when it comes to inflected languages. It would seem that they
would need also to be based on inflectional affixes in order to be as
effective with inflected languages as they are with non-inflected ones.
 
I found the method of unsupervised learning for parsing and of determining
the most probable parse trees to be very interesting. In general I think we
need more approaches like this to help increase the level of objectivity of
conclusions.
 
So, with respect to Classical Hebrew, I think the U-DOP and U-DOT approaches
would need to be adapted somehow to look at the inflectional affixes as well
as the parts of speech and word order.
 
Eric Inman

  _____  

From: James Christian [mailto:jc.bhebrew AT googlemail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 6:08 AM
To: Eric Inman
Cc: dwashbur AT nyx.net; b-hebrew
Subject: U-DOP was Generative Grammar


Hi Eric, 

forgetting about the exercise some of your comments made me feel you may be
interested in reading the following papers:

http://staff.science.uva.nl/~rens/conll06.pdf

http://staff.science.uva.nl/~rens/mtsummit2007.pdf

It is clear, as you hinted on in earlier posts, that a number of linguistic
phenomenon can be best described by non contiguous phrases. Standard
attempts at defining CFGs don't even tend to acknowledge the existence of
these kind of linguistic phenomenon. Anyway, have a read of those papers. I
get the feeling they might be more to your liking. They certainly are to
mine.

Obviously, there is no simple way that comes to mind of organising a simple
exercise for list members to participate in. It would certainly be
interesting to extend the U-DOP and U-DOT approaches to Classical Hebrew but
doing so requires solid programming skills and a lot of time and patience.

Let me know what you think about those papers. I would be interested in
hearing your comments.

James Christian


On 21 June 2010 00:51, Eric Inman <eric-inman AT comcast.net> wrote:


Hi James,
 
I don't have any alternative suggestions as to what technology to use for
the type of exercise you're trying to set up. I don't think the issues I
raised earlier would prevent what you're doing from being a valuable
learning exercise.
 
Eric

  _____  


From: James Christian [mailto:jc.bhebrew AT googlemail.com] 

Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2010 1:36 PM
To: Eric Inman
Cc: dwashbur AT nyx.net; b-hebrew 

Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Generation grammar and b-hebrew


Hi Eric, 

as I explained to you off list this isn't my approach. It was intended as a
simple exercise to inspire list members to get their hands dirty with
turning theoretical knowledge into something practical. Prolog (a technology
I would never use for a serious system) is an ideal starting point because
of its built in DCG handling which means no programming skills needed to get
started playing with a toy grammar.

Now, as far as I know the leading approaches at the moment involve using
either the LFG or the HPSG formalisms and there are quite large projects in
both technologies which are attempting to define wide coverage grammars of
modern languages. For a system driven by LFG see:

http://decentius.aksis.uib.no/logon/xle.xml

 <http://decentius.aksis.uib.no/logon/xle.xml> For information on systems
using HPSG see:

http://www.delph-in.net/

 <http://www.delph-in.net/> Now, I'm not sure what you mean by using an
approach that has been adapted for languages with a high degree of freedom.
If you have any suggestions of a technology we could use which is friendly
to list members who may have no computational linguistics experience or
programming skills then I'm open to suggestions. The two technologies
mentioned above for HPSG and LFG imply a steep learning curve and XLE is not
freely available anyway.

James Christian 


On 20 June 2010 14:38, Eric Inman <eric-inman AT comcast.net> wrote:


Hi Jim,

When referring to free word order languages, no one is using the term "free"
in an absolute sense but rather in a relative sense. In addition, no one is
using the word "free" to indicate that there are no rules or contraints
governing the word order. From my review of your comments along with a
quick, cursory review of what I could find by googling, my conclusion for
the time being is that it would be a good idea to use a an approach that has
been adapted for languages with a relatively high degree of freedom in word
order.

Your approach may very well prove productive if you carry it out, I just
think there might be more efficient ways of proceeding. If you do proceed
with this, I'll be interested in seeing what the results are.


Eric

-----Original Message-----
From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org

[mailto:b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of James Christian
Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2010 2:48 AM
To: dwashbur AT nyx.net
Cc: b-hebrew

Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Generation grammar and b-hebrew


Hi Eric,

in my honest opinion there is no such thing as a free word order language.
Yes. It is true that when we compare English word order with that of Koine
Greek then the Koine Greek does exhibit more 'freedom' in its word order.
But just what exactly do we mean by 'freedom'. Were the composers of Koine
Greek documents just randomly throwing out declined noun phrases? Hardly!
There are clearly patterns which are more dominant and patterns which are
less dominant and guided decisions were made when these documents were
generated. We even see similar phenomenon in English, a language we consider
to not have free word order. Consider the following:

1) Mary went to school
2) To school went Mary
3) To school did Mary go
4) To school Mary went

Sentence 1 is clearly the variant we would most likely encounter and yet
there are contexts were 2, 3 and 4 could be naturally produced. However,
this is certainly not a random pattern. There are clear reasons described by
patterns which dictate when form 4 would be preferred over form 1.

In any case, I cannot emphasize to you enough. Don't worry about the number
of rules. This is not necessarily a bad thing. What you should be worrying
about is whether your rule set over or under generates. Once you've got a
rule set which doesn't over or under generate *then* is the time to start
worrying if you could achieve the same thing with a more compact
representation. However, I promise you this. If you give this experiment a
go you will soon see that being in such an ground breaking position is far
greater a problem than it may seem.

I would rather have 1 million well defined rules that neither over nor under
generate than 1 all embracing rule that produces every conceivable
permutation of words both acceptable and unacceptable.

James Christian

_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew