On the hunt for lovely future participles

[Redhead]

Hi! Is there anyone who knows if there's any database similar to the TLG where you can make more exakt morphological searches? I'm looking for future participles in various texts. I got to use Logos Bible Software from a friend to instantly find the 12-15(textual variation and one conjecture) examples in the New Testament and the ca 67 examples in the Septuagint. But I want to do the same thing with more texts, classical as well.

The problem with the TLG is that it includes the fut. part. tag for a lot more than is contextually possible. Of the ca 300 hits with the search "verb future participle" 12 were actual future participles. For the Septuagint, it lists ca 1500 cases, whereof ca 67 are true future participles. I just wonder if there's a better way to do this kind of searches.

(And if anyone has any splendid resource on the use of future participles in classical times and up until ca 300 CE to share, I would give you a big wet kiss!)

[paveln]

Hi Redhead, different forms of verbs are easy to find here:
http://perseus.uchicago.edu/Greek.html
See Info & help below for how to search.
You can find your lovely future participles by searching this:
form:future-participle
or
pos:v*fp*
passive future participles:
pos:v*fpp*
future participles λέγω:
lemma:λέγω;pos:v*fp*
You can also limit the search by Author or Title. For example Platon or New Testament.

About 20 - 40% of search results are not future participles.

[mwh]

My thanks paveln, this could be useful, but I’m not familiar with this search feature. By way of a trial I easily found present infinitives in Sophocles’ Ajax (seemingly error-free), but is there a list of other search abbreviations analogous to pos:v*fp* (where I assume v stands for verb and fp for future participle)?

[paveln]

My thanks paveln, this could be useful, but I’m not familiar with this search feature. By way of a trial I easily found present infinitives in Sophocles’ Ajax (seemingly error-free), but is there a list of other search abbreviations analogous to pos:v*fp* (where I assume v stands for verb and fp for future participle)?

mwh, abbreviations and help you can find below.
Click on Info & Help below for further hints.

[mwh]

Many thanks. Looks good.

[Redhead]

Paveln, thank you so much!! You have made parts of my work a walk in the park compared to before! I remember looking into PhiloLogic some time ago, but I settled for the TLG instead. Now when I'm searching for a general morphological category this is definitely much better, even though TLG has a looooot more stuff in it and I'll have to use it for the authors that aren't represented in Perseus. Big hugs and kisses!! <3

I really feel like a kid in a candy store!! This is so exciting! Despite what people say, this is a wonderful age to be in love with Greek! Come my lovely darlings, now you won't escape my weary eyes!

[paveln]

Redhead, nice to help you with your lovely future participles

I remembered two useful things:
1) In the search results try to click
Click here for a KWIC Report

2) When a word is clicked in the search results, its morphology and translation are displayed.

[Redhead]

Redhead, nice to help you with your lovely future participles

I remembered two useful things:
1) In the search results try to click
Click here for a KWIC Report

2) When a word is clicked in the search results, its morphology and translation are displayed.

Yes, the KWIC Report is very handy. It's so easy to verify the hits. Thanks! But there is a thing that doesn't seem to make sense. What's really the difference between [word count] and [lemma count]? I mean, if the lemma count is really counting lemmata, then it shouldn't be near as high as the word count, right? But now it's just a few percent below. Based on the the data that is shown, I would guess that the word count somehow includes different forms of the word, and the lemma count doesn't, but in that case the difference should be much higher than it is. Can you please explain how I should interpret this? I feel kinda stupid...

The TLG also count words more in line with the lemma count of PhiloLogic, not the word count. For example: Plato, Republic. PhiloLogic: word count: 89412, stemma count: 88260; TLG: There are 88,194 words in this work corresponding to 14,973 unique forms and 5,481 lemmata. It's the same thing for the others that I checked.

[Redhead]

Okay, I've been using PhiloLogic all day long for over a week now. It's quite impressive, but not perfect. Here are a few examples:

It probably(?) missinterprets Anabasis 7.7.47: (47) ἀλλὰ μὴν ὅτι σοι δόξει ἀποδοῦναι πιστεύω καὶ τὸν χρόνον διδάξειν σε καὶ αὐτόν γέ σε οὐχὶ ἀνέξεσθαι τοὺς σοὶ προεμένους εὐεργεσίαν ὁρῶντά σοι ἐγκαλοῦντας. δέομαι οὖν σου, ὅταν ἀποδιδῷς, προθυμεῖσθαι ἐμὲ παρὰ τοῖς στρατιώταις τοιοῦτον ποιῆσαι οἷόνπερ καὶ παρέλαβες. I think this should be a pres., in contrast to 3.1.24: ἀλλ’ ἴσως γὰρ καὶ ἄλλοι ταὐτὰ ἐνθυμοῦνται, πρὸς τῶν θεῶν μὴ ἀναμένωμεν ἄλλους ἐφ’ ἡμᾶς ἐλθεῖν παρακαλοῦντας ἐπὶ τὰ κάλλιστα ἔργα, ἀλλ’ ἡμεῖς ἄρξωμεν τοῦ ἐξορμῆσαι καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους ἐπὶ τὴν ἀρετήν· φάνητε τῶν λοχαγῶν ἄριστοι καὶ τῶν στρατηγῶν ἀξιοστρατηγότεροι. This one is classified as a future and Mather/Hewitt ad loc. take this as a fut. as well. Please correct me if I'm wrong!

PhiloLogic also missed an obvious one in 1.4.19: ἐδόκει δὴ θεῖον εἶναι καὶ σαφῶς ὑποχωρῆσαι τὸν
 ποταμὸν Κύρῳ ὡς βασιλεύσοντι. It instead interprets it as an ind. 3p. pl. I have compared all of the texts available for Xenophon in PhiloLogic with the TLG. The TLG always needs to be purged from irrelevant forms, but in exchange it gets all the occurrences, with one exception: προερῶν is for some reason parsed as a pres. in the participle, but not always. It is assigned different lemmata in the parsing tool and is thus a "pres." in X. An. 7.7.13 (from προερῶ) but fut. in Herodotus 1.77 (from προλέγω).

Summa summarum: they need to be used together to eliminate all errors. I've been going though most of the authors available for PhiloLogic, and there are quite a lot of faulty classifications, but nothing compared to the TLG. But the TLG includes pretty much every relevant occurrence, with extremely few exceptions. Now I "just" need to compare my results from PhiloLogic with the TLG for the rest of the authors.

So if, someone would please help me with the question of which what the difference between "lemma count" and "word count" is, I would be very glad. Pretty pleeeaase...