Comparing morphology

A place for members to share information and news about books, software, and websites of interest.
Forum rules
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
dirkroorda
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2018 1:45 pm

Comparing morphology

Postby dirkroorda » Tue Jan 16, 2018 2:26 pm

I am in the process of comparing the Hebrew morphology as encoded by the OpenScriptures initiative with the work of the Amsterdam people at the ETCBC. The former is based on the WLC, the latter on the BHS.
I am using Text-Fabric in Jupyter notebooks. The first task was to align the words in both sources, and from there we can start comparing the morphology piece by piece. Currently, language and part-of-speech have been compared.
The comparison is redoable, because the OSM is not yet finished. 90%.
The purpose of comparing is improving the quality of morphology wherever possible and to gain more insight on what insights the assignment of morphology is based.
You can start here: https://github.com/ETCBC/bridging/tree/master/programs
The alignment is done in https://github.com/ETCBC/bridging/blob/ ... eOSM.ipynb,
The comparisons in https://github.com/ETCBC/bridging/blob/ ... uage.ipynb and https://github.com/ETCBC/bridging/blob/ ... eech.ipynb .
Let me know what you think.

kwrandolph
Posts: 877
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: Comparing morphology

Postby kwrandolph » Wed Jan 17, 2018 12:17 pm

dirkroorda wrote:I am in the process of comparing the Hebrew morphology as encoded by the OpenScriptures initiative with the work of the Amsterdam people at the ETCBC. The former is based on the WLC, the latter on the BHS.
I am using Text-Fabric in Jupyter notebooks. The first task was to align the words in both sources, and from there we can start comparing the morphology piece by piece. Currently, language and part-of-speech have been compared.
The comparison is redoable, because the OSM is not yet finished. 90%.
The purpose of comparing is improving the quality of morphology wherever possible and to gain more insight on what insights the assignment of morphology is based.
You can start here: https://github.com/ETCBC/bridging/tree/master/programs
The alignment is done in https://github.com/ETCBC/bridging/blob/ ... eOSM.ipynb,
The comparisons in https://github.com/ETCBC/bridging/blob/ ... uage.ipynb and https://github.com/ETCBC/bridging/blob/ ... eech.ipynb .
Let me know what you think.


Dear Dirkroorda:

Is this your real name? This is just a friendly note that one of the rules of this site is that you sign with your real name.

Is this effort based on the Masoretic points? If so, how can it be trusted? How do you deal with all the mistakes that the Masoretes did when they made their points?

Karl W. Randolph.

dirkroorda
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2018 1:45 pm

Re: Comparing morphology

Postby dirkroorda » Wed Jan 17, 2018 5:16 pm

Dear Karl,
sorry, indeed, my real name is Dirk Roorda.

The only thing I do is comparing two efforts of annotating the Mmasoretic text (as in the WLC / BHS) with morphological annotations.

By nature, this is subjective, because it involves human judgment about language utterances. On the other hand, there is structure in the data. Humans are sensitive to linguistic structures, and we can strengthen the consistency of those judgments by employing algorithms.

I do not know by what process the OpenScripture people have arrived at their morphology. I do know that the Amsterdam people of the Eep Talstra Centre for Bible and Computer used a mixture of man/machine, trying hard to remain at the objective side of things, but of course not completely succeeding in that.

Anyway, comparing the two efforts is a good way to get a catalogue of the tricky spots in the Hebrew Bible, as far as morphology is concerned.

Dirk Roorda


Return to “Resources”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest