[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

re: grammar tagging systems, why not two?

This question has been rankling for a few years without an answer. In 
reviewing the tagging systems that are used for Greek NT, LXX and Hebrew 
OT I have never seen one that specifically addresses the *functional* 
level of syntax separated from morphology. Why not? 

There are systems like the one used for the CCAT LXX, which are strictly 
limited to morphology. There are systems that are primarily morphology 
but mix in a little function like the Friberg NT. Then there are systems 
that mix up morphology and function rather completely. 

Two simple examples to illustrate the difference:

Friberg Tags:   CC, CH, CS    include a second element that shows 
function
CCAT Tag:        C  does not show function
Friberg Tags:   PG, PD, PA    include a second element that shows 
function
CCAT Tag:        P  does not show function

Has anyone developed a rather full, robust *functional* tagging system 
for the GNT which divorces it from morphology? Has it been applied to 
the whole NT and if so is it available?

I would appreciate any information you might have on this topic. Even if 
the tagging system has not been applied to the entire NT. Just to have  
a robust functional tagging system would be a benefit in doing analysis 
of the NT.

Thanks to you all.

Clay Bartholomew
Three Tree Point