Suggested corrections to OSHB Morphology from Clear Syntax Trees

[jonathanrobie]

Clear has started comparing OSHB morphology to other analyses as we build Clear Syntax Trees. Joel Ruark and Randall Tan have discussed the cases that have arisen, and make the following suggestions. I will issue a pull request that contains these corrections, so that they can be discussed individually there.

Implied article:
On the one hand, if the noun begins with a guttural with a hatep vowel, the preposition takes the corresponding full vowel.
On the other hand, before heh and ḥet that are not qamats-pointed – the definite article remains pointed with a pataḥ without “compensation for a” dagesh
Currently thinking that the following forms are ambiguous & would depend on context
OSHB should omit implicit article (if left unexplained, reason is patah vowel already explained by if the noun begins with a guttural with a hatep vowel, the preposition takes the corresponding full vowel)
ex16:1 בַּחֲמִשָּׁ֨ה OSHB should change Rd to R
ex20:6 לַאֲלָפִ֑ים OSHB should change Rd to R (guttural with a hatep vowel, the preposition takes the corresponding full vowel; with an aleph, should have qames rather than patah)
ex24:10 לָטֹֽהַר׃ OSHB should change Rd to R I think what is happening is: When the inseparable preposition is attached immediately before the tone syllable (i.e., the accented syllable) of a word in pause, the pointing under the preposition is sometimes lengthened to a qamets
ex27:18 בַּחֲמִשִּׁ֗ים OSHB should change Rd to R
ex32:27 לָשַׁ֨עַר֙ OSHB should change Rd to R--don't have explanation for qames vowel, though I would have expected "from gate to gate" to have both gates without article
lv23:6 וּבַחֲמִשָּׁ֨ה should change Rd to R
lv23:34 בַּחֲמִשָּׁ֨ה should change Rd to R
lv23:39 בַּחֲמִשָּׁה֩ should change Rd to R
lv26:39 בַּעֲוֺנֹ֥ת אֲבֹתָ֖ם should change Rd to R (construct would not have article on first noun in construct chain)
lv26:43 בָּהְשַׁמָּה֙ should change Rd to R (modifying infinitive construct)
nu28:17 וּבַחֲמִשָּׁ֨ה should change Rd to R
nu29:12 וּבַחֲמִשָּׁה֩ should change Rd to R
nu33:3 בַּחֲמִשָּׁ֥ה should change Rd to R
dt5:10 לַֽאֲלָפִ֑ים should change Rd to R
dt22:10 וּבַחֲמֹ֖ר should change Rd to R
1s6:18 לַחֲמֵ֣שֶׁת הַסְּרָנִ֔ים should change Rd to R (construct would not have article on first noun in construct chain)
1k10:29 בַּחֲמִשִּׁ֣ים should change Rd to R
1k12:32 בַּחֲמִשָּֽׁה should change Rd to R
1k12:33 בַּחֲמִשָּׁ֨ה should change Rd to R
2k6:25 בַּחֲמִשָּׁה should change Rd to R
1c25:22 לַחֲמִשָּׁ֤ה should change Rd to R
2c1:17 בַּחֲמִשִּׁ֣ים should change Rd to R
2c28:15 בַּחֲמֹרִים֙ should change Rd to R
ez4:2 כָכֶ֔ם should change Rd to R
ez4:3 וָלָ֔נוּ should change Rd to R
ne6:15 לַחֲמִשִּׁ֥ים should change Rd to R
es9:18 בַּחֲמִשָּׁ֤ה should change Rd to R
ps68:19 לַמָּר֨וֹם should change Td to Rd (double error unlike the others normally in this list)
je32:18 לַֽאֲלָפִ֔ים should change Rd to R (same reason as ex20:6 לַאֲלָפִ֑ים)
ek1:1 בַּחֲמִשָּׁ֣ה should change Rd to R
ek1:2 בַּחֲמִשָּׁ֖ה should change Rd to R
ek8:1 בַּחֲמִשָּׁ֣ה should change Rd to R?
ek32:17 בַּחֲמִשָּׁ֥ה should change Rd to R?
ek33:21 בַּחֲמִשָּׁ֥ה should change Rd to R?
ek37:17 לַאֲחָדִ֖ים should change Rd to R
ek45:2 בַּחֲמֵ֥שׁ should change Rd to R
ek45:25 בַּחֲמִשָּׁה֩ should change Rd to R
ek48:20 בַּחֲמִשָּׁ֥ה should change Rd to R
ho3:2 בַּחֲמִשָּׁ֥ה should change Rd to R
am1:3 בַּחֲרֻצ֥וֹת הַבַּרְזֶ֖ל should change Rd to R (construct would not have article on first noun in construct chain)
gn18:28 בַּחֲמִשָּׁ֖ה OSHB Rd should change to just R?
ex9:11 בַּֽחֲרְטֻמִּ֖ם OSHB should change R to Rd? (previously Randall thought so & Joel did not)
ps139:12 כַּ֝חֲשֵׁיכָ֗ה OSHB should change R to Rd? (previously Randall thought so & Joel did not)
zc7:5 בַּחֲמִישִׁ֣י OSHB should change R to Rd? (previously Randall thought so & Joel did not)
OTHER ERRORS IN OSHB
1c5:9 לְב֣וֹא lemma="935" morph="R/Vqc" InnerText="לְ/ב֣וֹא" lemma should be "l/935" instead; after correcting still have to account for WHM treating לְב֣וֹא as one word
2c26:8 לְב֣וֹא lemma="935" morph="R/Vqc" InnerText="לְ/ב֣וֹא" lemma should be "l/935" instead; after correcting still have to account for WHM treating לְב֣וֹא as one word
OSHB should change Rd to Td (all previously confirmed by both of Joel & Randall)
ju13:8 הַיּוּלָּֽד (2 problems in this verse; the other is particle of entreaty vs preposition and pronominal suffix difference in interpretation)
ju14:14 מֵהָֽאֹכֵל֙
2s15:18 הַגִּתִּ֞ים
2c30:2 הַשֵּׁנִֽי
hg2:19 הַזַּ֖יִת
zc9:12 הַתִּקְוָ֑ה
One part of Ketiv erroneously not marked as Ketiv (all previously confirmed by both of Joel & Randall)
ju16:25 כי
2s21:12 שם
2c34:6 בהר
jb38:1 מנ
jb38:12 ידעתה
jb40:6 מנ
is44:24 מי
je48:44 הניס No Ketiv is marked at all here (unlikely other cases where only part of Ketiv not marked)
lm4:3 כי
ek42:9 ומתחתה
OSHB should add implicit article
ex12:3 בֶּעָשֹׂ֖ר OSHB should change R to Rd (previously confirmed by both of Joel & Randall)
ex16:18 בָעֹ֔מֶר OSHB should change R to Rd (previously confirmed by both of Joel & Randall)
ex16:22 לָאֶחָ֑ד OSHB should change R to Rd (previously confirmed by both of Joel & Randall)
lv27:7 וְלַנְּקֵבָ֖ה OSHB should change R to Rd (previously confirmed by both of Joel & Randall)
lv27:33 לָרַ֖ע OSHB should change R to Rd (previously confirmed by both of Joel & Randall)
js8:2 לָעַ֜י OSHB should change R to Rd (previously confirmed by both of Joel & Randall)
js8:9 לָעָ֑י OSHB should change R to Rd (previously confirmed by both of Joel & Randall)
js8:11 לָעַ֔י OSHB should change R to Rd (previously confirmed by both of Joel & Randall)
js8:16 בָּעַ֔י OSHB should change R to Rd (previously confirmed by both of Joel & Randall)
js9:3 וְלָעָֽי OSHB should change R to Rd (previously confirmed by both of Joel & Randall)
js10:1 לָעַ֖י OSHB should change R to Rd (previously confirmed by both of Joel & Randall)
ru2:9 בַּשָּׂדֶ֤ה OSHB should change R to Rd (previously confirmed by both of Joel & Randall)
2c31:19 בַּלְוִיִּֽם OSHB should change R to Rd (previously confirmed by both of Joel & Randall)
ne11:21 בָּעֹ֑פֶל OSHB should change R to Rd (previously confirmed by both of Joel & Randall)
jb16:15 בֶעָפָ֣ר OSHB should change R to Rd (previously confirmed by both of Joel & Randall)
ps23:5 בַשֶּׁ֥מֶן OSHB should change R to Rd (previously confirmed by both of Joel & Randall)
ps66:9 לַמּ֣וֹט OSHB should change R to Rd (previously confirmed by both of Joel & Randall)
ps121:3 לַמּ֣וֹט OSHB should change R to Rd (previously confirmed by both of Joel & Randall)
pr27:19 לַפָּנִ֑ים OSHB should change R to Rd (previously confirmed by both of Joel & Randall)
ec9:12 וְכַ֨צִּפֳּרִ֔ים OSHB should change R to Rd (previously confirmed by both of Joel & Randall)
ca5:12 בֶּֽחָלָ֔ב OSHB should change R to Rd (previously confirmed by both of Joel & Randall)
is61:10 כֶּֽחָתָן֙ OSHB should change R to Rd (previously confirmed by both of Joel & Randall)
ho5:8 בָּרָמָ֑ה OSHB should change R to Rd (previously confirmed by both of Joel & Randall)
ho13:1 בַּבַּ֖עַל OSHB should change R to Rd (previously confirmed by both of Joel & Randall)

[DavidIB]

The ETCBC dataset confirms almost all of these - the few exceptions are below. The abbreviations are defined at https://goo.gl/HP4mZQ The ETCBC data is converted to these abbreviations in the STEPBible repository "TOTHT" at https://stepbible.github.io/STEPBible-Data/ The exceptions where ETCBC disagrees with these corrections are: Ezr.4.2 כָכֶ֔ם should change Rd to R - ETCBC has Rd/Sp2mp Ezr.4.3 וָלָ֔נוּ should change Rd to R - ETCBC has C/Rd/Sp1bp Psa.68.19 לַמָּר֨וֹם should change Td to Rd (double error unlike the others normally in this list) - ETCBC has Rd/Ncbsa which STEPBible changes to Rd/Ncmsa Exo.9.11 בַּֽחֲרְטֻמִּ֖ם OSHB should change R to Rd? (previously Randall thought so & Joel did not) - ETCBC has Rd/Ncmpa Psa.139.12 כַּ֝חֲשֵׁיכָ֗ה OSHB should change R to Rd? (previously Randall thought so & Joel did not) - ETCBC has Rd/Ncfsa Zec.7.5 בַּחֲמִישִׁ֣י OSHB should change R to Rd? (previously Randall thought so & Joel did not) - ETCBC has Rd/Aobsa which STEPBible changes to Rd/Aomsa Lev.27.33 לָרַ֖ע OSHB should change R to Rd (previously confirmed by both of Joel & Randall) - ETCBC has R/Aabsa which STEPBible changes to R/Aamsa It would be interesting to know what Joel and Randall think about these differences. All the best *David IB*

…

On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 10:43 PM Jonathan Robie ***@***.***> wrote: Clear has started comparing OSHB morphology to other analyses as we build Clear Syntax Trees. Joel Ruark and Randall Tan have discussed the cases that have arisen, and make the following suggestions. I will issue a pull request that contains these corrections, so that they can be discussed individually there. Implied article: On the one hand, if the noun begins with a guttural with a hatep vowel, the preposition takes the corresponding full vowel. On the other hand, before heh and ḥet that are not qamats-pointed – the definite article remains pointed with a pataḥ without “compensation for a” dagesh Currently thinking that the following forms are ambiguous & would depend on context OSHB should omit implicit article (if left unexplained, reason is patah vowel already explained by if the noun begins with a guttural with a hatep vowel, the preposition takes the corresponding full vowel) ex16:1 בַּחֲמִשָּׁ֨ה OSHB should change Rd to R ex20:6 לַאֲלָפִ֑ים OSHB should change Rd to R (guttural with a hatep vowel, the preposition takes the corresponding full vowel; with an aleph, should have qames rather than patah) ex24:10 לָטֹֽהַר׃ OSHB should change Rd to R I think what is happening is: When the inseparable preposition is attached immediately before the tone syllable (i.e., the accented syllable) of a word in pause, the pointing under the preposition is sometimes lengthened to a qamets ex27:18 בַּחֲמִשִּׁ֗ים OSHB should change Rd to R ex32:27 לָשַׁ֨עַר֙ OSHB should change Rd to R--don't have explanation for qames vowel, though I would have expected "from gate to gate" to have both gates without article lv23:6 וּבַחֲמִשָּׁ֨ה should change Rd to R lv23:34 בַּחֲמִשָּׁ֨ה should change Rd to R lv23:39 בַּחֲמִשָּׁה֩ should change Rd to R lv26:39 בַּעֲוֺנֹ֥ת אֲבֹתָ֖ם should change Rd to R (construct would not have article on first noun in construct chain) lv26:43 בָּהְשַׁמָּה֙ should change Rd to R (modifying infinitive construct) nu28:17 וּבַחֲמִשָּׁ֨ה should change Rd to R nu29:12 וּבַחֲמִשָּׁה֩ should change Rd to R nu33:3 בַּחֲמִשָּׁ֥ה should change Rd to R dt5:10 לַֽאֲלָפִ֑ים should change Rd to R dt22:10 וּבַחֲמֹ֖ר should change Rd to R 1s6:18 לַחֲמֵ֣שֶׁת הַסְּרָנִ֔ים should change Rd to R (construct would not have article on first noun in construct chain) 1k10:29 בַּחֲמִשִּׁ֣ים should change Rd to R 1k12:32 בַּחֲמִשָּֽׁה should change Rd to R 1k12:33 בַּחֲמִשָּׁ֨ה should change Rd to R 2k6:25 בַּחֲמִשָּׁה should change Rd to R 1c25:22 לַחֲמִשָּׁ֤ה should change Rd to R 2c1:17 בַּחֲמִשִּׁ֣ים should change Rd to R 2c28:15 בַּחֲמֹרִים֙ should change Rd to R ez4:2 כָכֶ֔ם should change Rd to R ez4:3 וָלָ֔נוּ should change Rd to R ne6:15 לַחֲמִשִּׁ֥ים should change Rd to R es9:18 בַּחֲמִשָּׁ֤ה should change Rd to R ps68:19 לַמָּר֨וֹם should change Td to Rd (double error unlike the others normally in this list) je32:18 לַֽאֲלָפִ֔ים should change Rd to R (same reason as ex20:6 לַאֲלָפִ֑ים) ek1:1 בַּחֲמִשָּׁ֣ה should change Rd to R ek1:2 בַּחֲמִשָּׁ֖ה should change Rd to R ek8:1 בַּחֲמִשָּׁ֣ה should change Rd to R? ek32:17 בַּחֲמִשָּׁ֥ה should change Rd to R? ek33:21 בַּחֲמִשָּׁ֥ה should change Rd to R? ek37:17 לַאֲחָדִ֖ים should change Rd to R ek45:2 בַּחֲמֵ֥שׁ should change Rd to R ek45:25 בַּחֲמִשָּׁה֩ should change Rd to R ek48:20 בַּחֲמִשָּׁ֥ה should change Rd to R ho3:2 בַּחֲמִשָּׁ֥ה should change Rd to R am1:3 בַּחֲרֻצ֥וֹת הַבַּרְזֶ֖ל should change Rd to R (construct would not have article on first noun in construct chain) gn18:28 בַּחֲמִשָּׁ֖ה OSHB Rd should change to just R? ex9:11 בַּֽחֲרְטֻמִּ֖ם OSHB should change R to Rd? (previously Randall thought so & Joel did not) ps139:12 כַּ֝חֲשֵׁיכָ֗ה OSHB should change R to Rd? (previously Randall thought so & Joel did not) zc7:5 בַּחֲמִישִׁ֣י OSHB should change R to Rd? (previously Randall thought so & Joel did not) OTHER ERRORS IN OSHB 1c5:9 לְב֣וֹא lemma="935" morph="R/Vqc" InnerText="לְ/ב֣וֹא" lemma should be "l/935" instead; after correcting still have to account for WHM treating לְב֣וֹא as one word 2c26:8 לְב֣וֹא lemma="935" morph="R/Vqc" InnerText="לְ/ב֣וֹא" lemma should be "l/935" instead; after correcting still have to account for WHM treating לְב֣וֹא as one word OSHB should change Rd to Td (all previously confirmed by both of Joel & Randall) ju13:8 הַיּוּלָּֽד (2 problems in this verse; the other is particle of entreaty vs preposition and pronominal suffix difference in interpretation) ju14:14 מֵהָֽאֹכֵל֙ 2s15:18 הַגִּתִּ֞ים 2c30:2 הַשֵּׁנִֽי hg2:19 הַזַּ֖יִת zc9:12 הַתִּקְוָ֑ה One part of Ketiv erroneously not marked as Ketiv (all previously confirmed by both of Joel & Randall) ju16:25 כי 2s21:12 שם 2c34:6 בהר jb38:1 מנ jb38:12 ידעתה jb40:6 מנ is44:24 מי je48:44 הניס No Ketiv is marked at all here (unlikely other cases where only part of Ketiv not marked) lm4:3 כי ek42:9 ומתחתה OSHB should add implicit article ex12:3 בֶּעָשֹׂ֖ר OSHB should change R to Rd (previously confirmed by both of Joel & Randall) ex16:18 בָעֹ֔מֶר OSHB should change R to Rd (previously confirmed by both of Joel & Randall) ex16:22 לָאֶחָ֑ד OSHB should change R to Rd (previously confirmed by both of Joel & Randall) lv27:7 וְלַנְּקֵבָ֖ה OSHB should change R to Rd (previously confirmed by both of Joel & Randall) lv27:33 לָרַ֖ע OSHB should change R to Rd (previously confirmed by both of Joel & Randall) js8:2 לָעַ֜י OSHB should change R to Rd (previously confirmed by both of Joel & Randall) js8:9 לָעָ֑י OSHB should change R to Rd (previously confirmed by both of Joel & Randall) js8:11 לָעַ֔י OSHB should change R to Rd (previously confirmed by both of Joel & Randall) js8:16 בָּעַ֔י OSHB should change R to Rd (previously confirmed by both of Joel & Randall) js9:3 וְלָעָֽי OSHB should change R to Rd (previously confirmed by both of Joel & Randall) js10:1 לָעַ֖י OSHB should change R to Rd (previously confirmed by both of Joel & Randall) ru2:9 בַּשָּׂדֶ֤ה OSHB should change R to Rd (previously confirmed by both of Joel & Randall) 2c31:19 בַּלְוִיִּֽם OSHB should change R to Rd (previously confirmed by both of Joel & Randall) ne11:21 בָּעֹ֑פֶל OSHB should change R to Rd (previously confirmed by both of Joel & Randall) jb16:15 בֶעָפָ֣ר OSHB should change R to Rd (previously confirmed by both of Joel & Randall) ps23:5 בַשֶּׁ֥מֶן OSHB should change R to Rd (previously confirmed by both of Joel & Randall) ps66:9 לַמּ֣וֹט OSHB should change R to Rd (previously confirmed by both of Joel & Randall) ps121:3 לַמּ֣וֹט OSHB should change R to Rd (previously confirmed by both of Joel & Randall) pr27:19 לַפָּנִ֑ים OSHB should change R to Rd (previously confirmed by both of Joel & Randall) ec9:12 וְכַ֨צִּפֳּרִ֔ים OSHB should change R to Rd (previously confirmed by both of Joel & Randall) ca5:12 בֶּֽחָלָ֔ב OSHB should change R to Rd (previously confirmed by both of Joel & Randall) is61:10 כֶּֽחָתָן֙ OSHB should change R to Rd (previously confirmed by both of Joel & Randall) ho5:8 בָּרָמָ֑ה OSHB should change R to Rd (previously confirmed by both of Joel & Randall) ho13:1 בַּבַּ֖עַל OSHB should change R to Rd (previously confirmed by both of Joel & Randall) — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#90>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAM5BOTNOMMTF7D2RV43HJTU7J3HPANCNFSM5QN73XEA> . Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS <https://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id1477376905?ct=notification-email&mt=8&pt=524675> or Android <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.github.android&referrer=utm_campaign%3Dnotification-email%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dgithub>. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[rkjtan]

David, thanks for interacting on these cases. Sorry for the delay in responding.

Ezr.4.2 I think OSHB is in error with morph="HRd/Pp2mp" id="15Qq3">כָ/כֶ֔םid="15Qq3">כָ/כֶ֔ם. First, the pronominal suffix Sp is mistagged as a personal pronoun. My full proposed correction is morph="HR/Sp2mp" The only difference with ETCBC Rd/Sp2mp is regarding the definite article. I don't think that the pronominal suffix with a prefixed preposition takes a definite article (the qames is explained by strong vocalisation with heavy suffixes as Joüon §103c notes.

Ezr.4.3 I think OSHB is in error with morph="HC/Rd/Pp1cp" id="151bY">וָ/לָ֔/נוּ. The same problems and reasoning for Ezr.4.2 apply here as well. My full proposed correction is morph="HC/R/Sp1cp" The only difference with ETCBC C/Rd/Sp1bp is regarding the definite article. Again, I don't think that the pronominal suffix with a prefixed preposition takes a definite article.

Psa.68.19 I think OSHB is in error with morph="HTd/Ncmsa" id="19TcE">לַ/מָּר֨וֹם. The preposition is mistagged as a particle. My full proposed correction is morph="HRd/Ncmsa". This is in agreement with STEPBible (& only different from ETCBC in terms of gender being masculine rather than both).

Exo.9.11 OSHB currectly doesn't see the implied definite article. The form is ambiguous (per Joüon §35e), but I think the context favors the article being present. My full proposed correction is morph="HRd/Ncmpa" for id="029g8">בַּֽ/חֲרְטֻמִּ֖ם. This is in agreement with ETCBC Rd/Ncmpa.

Psa.139.12 OSHB currently doesn't see the implied definite article. The form is ambiguous (per Joüon §35e), but I think the context might slightly favor (debatable) the article being present. My full proposed correction is morph="HRd/Ncfsa" for id="19KRL">כַּ֝/חֲשֵׁיכָ֗ה. This is in agreement with ETCBC Rd/Ncfsa.

Zec.7.5 OSHB currently doesn't see the implied definite article. The form is ambiguous (per Joüon §35e), but I think the context and usage elsewhere in this exact construction might slightly favor (debatable) the article being present. My full proposed correction is morph="HRd/Aomsa" for id="38V8j">בַּ/חֲמִישִׁ֣י. This is in agreement with STEPBible Rd/Aomsa (& only different from ETCBC in terms of gender being masculine rather than both).

Lev.27.33 Non-pausal forms without the article have the shewa לְרַ֥ע in Jer 7:6, Ecc 8:9. Pausal forms without the article have the shewa in 2 Sam. 19:36 & 1 Kings 3:9 לְרָ֑ע. Isaiah 5:20 has explicit alternation of definite article to none in לָרַ֛ע ט֖וֹב וְלַטּ֣וֹב רָ֑ע. So, I conclude that qames for לָרַ֖ע indicates the presence of a definite article. My full proposed correction is morph="HRd/Aamsa" for id="03gzn">לָ/רַ֖ע. The only difference with STEPBible R/Aamsa is regarding the definite article (& a further difference with ETCBC is in terms of gender being masculine rather than both).

[DavidIB]

Thanks, this is very helpful. I've agreed with the three differences and altered them in STEPBible data (not yet updated on Github). *David IB*

…

On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 8:44 PM rkjtan ***@***.***> wrote: David, thanks for interacting on these cases. Sorry for the delay in responding. Ezr.4.2 I think OSHB is in error with morph="HRd/Pp2mp" id="15Qq3">כָ/כֶ֔םid="15Qq3">כָ/כֶ֔ם. First, the pronominal suffix Sp is mistagged as a personal pronoun. My full proposed correction is morph="HR/Sp2mp" The only difference with ETCBC Rd/Sp2mp is regarding the definite article. I don't think that the pronominal suffix with a prefixed preposition takes a definite article (the qames is explained by strong vocalisation with heavy suffixes as Joüon §103c notes. Ezr.4.3 I think OSHB is in error with morph="HC/Rd/Pp1cp" id="151bY">וָ/לָ֔/נוּ. The same problems and reasoning for Ezr.4.2 apply here as well. My full proposed correction is morph="HC/R/Sp1cp" The only difference with ETCBC C/Rd/Sp1bp is regarding the definite article. Again, I don't think that the pronominal suffix with a prefixed preposition takes a definite article. Psa.68.19 I think OSHB is in error with morph="HTd/Ncmsa" id="19TcE">לַ/מָּר֨וֹם. The preposition is mistagged as a particle. My full proposed correction is morph="HRd/Ncmsa". This is in agreement with STEPBible (& only different from ETCBC in terms of gender being masculine rather than both). Exo.9.11 OSHB currectly doesn't see the implied definite article. The form is ambiguous (per Joüon §35e), but I think the context favors the article being present. My full proposed correction is morph="HRd/Ncmpa" for id="029g8">בַּֽ/חֲרְטֻמִּ֖ם. This is in agreement with ETCBC Rd/Ncmpa. Psa.139.12 OSHB currently doesn't see the implied definite article. The form is ambiguous (per Joüon §35e), but I think the context might slightly favor (debatable) the article being present. My full proposed correction is morph="HRd/Ncfsa" for id="19KRL">כַּ֝/חֲשֵׁיכָ֗ה. This is in agreement with ETCBC Rd/Ncfsa. Zec.7.5 OSHB currently doesn't see the implied definite article. The form is ambiguous (per Joüon §35e), but I think the context and usage elsewhere in this exact construction might slightly favor (debatable) the article being present. My full proposed correction is morph="HRd/Aomsa" for id="38V8j">בַּ/חֲמִישִׁ֣י. This is in agreement with STEPBible Rd/Aomsa (& only different from ETCBC in terms of gender being masculine rather than both). Lev.27.33 Non-pausal forms without the article have the shewa לְרַ֥ע in Jer 7:6, Ecc 8:9. Pausal forms without the article have the shewa in 2 Sam. 19:36 & 1 Kings 3:9. Isaiah 5:20 has explicit alternation of definite article to none in לָרַ֛ע ט֖וֹב וְלַטּ֣וֹב רָ֑ע. So, I conclude that qames for לָרַ֖ע indicates the presence of a definite article. My full proposed correction is morph="HRd/Aamsa" for id="03gzn">לָ/רַ֖ע. The only difference with STEPBible R/Aamsa is regarding the definite article (& a further difference with ETCBC is in terms of gender being masculine rather than both). — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#90 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAM5BOTV4IRRCKU77PJEIEDVATTKPANCNFSM5QN73XEA> . Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS <https://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id1477376905?ct=notification-email&mt=8&pt=524675> or Android <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.github.android&referrer=utm_campaign%3Dnotification-email%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dgithub>. You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: ***@***.***>