Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [GTh] Morpheme Separation in Layton Book

Expand Messages
  • Rick Hubbard
    Hi Mike- Yeah, I like the dividers too. And, FWIW, the dashes seem somehow to distract less from the text (in other words, they are less intrusive than the
    Message 1 of 13 , Apr 11, 2011
    • 0 Attachment

      Hi Mike-

       

      Yeah, I like the dividers too. And, FWIW, the dashes seem somehow to distract less from the text (in other words, they are less intrusive than the raised dots). The divisions are also used in in Brankeaer’s 2010 Learning Grammar as well as in Layton’s 2007 Coptic Reference Grammar. It looks like you started a trend!

       

      As long as we are on the subject of Layton’s Grammar, what do you think of the alternate grammatical naming conventions (for example bipartite sentence patterns are now “durative sentences” and the old tripartite patterns are now referred to as “non-durative sentences, etc.)? It seems to me that somebody needs to put together a cross-reference for ALL the new terminology.

       

      Rick

       

      From: gthomas@yahoogroups.com [mailto:gthomas@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of M.W. Grondin
      Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 5:36 PM
      To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [GTh] Morpheme Separation in Layton Book

       

       

      Still working on the displays of multi-saying words, I've just today opened up

      Bentley Layton's Coptic in 20 Lessons, which had been sitting shrink-wrapped

      on a shelf since I received it some months ago. One of the first things that struck

      me was that Layton uses dashes to separate the various meaningful elements (he calls

      them 'morphs') within a compound Coptic word (which he calls a 'bound group').

      I'm delighted to see this. When I studied Coptic (about twenty years ago, I guess),

      I used the Lambdin book, which didn't have separators, so I had no model when

      I devised my own system. In all the time since then, I've never run across anyone else

      who used separators. Now I'm sure there's differences between Layton's system and

      mine, but for the moment, I'm pretty excited to find this in a scholarly publication.

       

      Mike G.

       

    • M.W. Grondin
      Hi Rick, As to the alternate naming conventions that Layton uses, I haven t gotten far enough into the book to form any opinion on that. I ve only skimmed a
      Message 2 of 13 , Apr 12, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Rick,
         
        As to the alternate naming conventions that Layton uses, I haven't gotten far enough
        into the book to form any opinion on that. I've only skimmed a few random passages,
        and so far, so good. His instincts about what needs explaining and how to explain it
        seem much in line with my own. A couple things I notice so far:
         
        1. I like the Coptic font. It looks like Codex II.
         
        2. No answer key to exercises: Lambdin didn't have one either, but Bill Arnal worked
        one up. Wonder if he'll do the same for Layton?
         
        3. Layton's dictionary (which is basically why I cracked the book open) doesn't begin to
        compare with Lambdin's, which is about 150 pages. Evidently not one of the things that
        Layton was interested in doing in this book.
         
        As to the type of divider used, I'm not fond of Layton's dashes - not because they're
        dashes, but because they're very wide dashes. Since they're wider than the space
        between words, I think that the eye tends to see them as the divider between words,
        rather than the inter-word space. Maybe the eye will eventually get used to it, but as a
        general rule, I would think that whatever intra-word divider is used should be narrower
        than the spacing between words. (In the case of the "raised dot" that I use, it was more
        the result of the limitations of the font used at the time than a conscious choice
        between alternatives, but compared with a wide dash, it's much less intrusive.)
         
        Mike
      • Judy Redman
        After a break of quite some time ( a year or so), I am just about to plunge back into my doctorate, which means polishing up my Coptic, which was sadly
        Message 3 of 13 , Apr 26, 2011
        • 0 Attachment

          After a break of quite some time ( a year or so), I am just about to plunge back into my doctorate, which means polishing up my Coptic, which was sadly neglected while I was working in an entirely other field. Fortunately, one of my local colleagues (I am now living in Albury, at the other end of the state, although still a student at UNE) is fascinated by old languages and has said she’d like to learn Coptic.  Mind you, this all happened while we were wandering the streets of North Albury on an ecumenical stations of the cross – she may change her mind when she has had a chance to think it through more carefully. J We will be using Layton, I think, for a number of reasons. One is that April DeConick has been using it since it came out and is impressed by it; another is that I would like to get my head around Layton’s classifications. A third is that Layton’s glossary uses the same system of alphabetising that Crum uses, which will make it easier for her to learn to use Crum. Lambin’s glossary is much easier for English-first-language people to find words in, but many people then find it really difficult to find words in Crum or Smith.

           

          Layton isn’t the only one to use them and probably not even the first – Ariel Shisha-Halevy was talking about durative sentences etc in his Coptic Grammatical Chrestomathy - A Course for Academic and Private Study, which was published in 1988.  They argue that this system better describes how Coptic works, now that people have had several decades to examine the Nag Hamadi texts. The index to Layton’s grammar provides a guide to the equivalences between the terms, in that when you look up the older name, it will point you to the new one. I know that the grammar is prohibitively expensive for those who are not employed in the field, but I would be very happy to scan and email a copy of the index to anyone who has more spare time than I do and would be prepared to produce a concise reference table of equivalent terms. J

           

          Regards

           

          Judy

           

          --

          Judy Redman
          PhD Candidate, School of Humanities
          University of New England
          Armidale 2351 Australia
          ph:  +61 2 6773 3401
          mob: 0437 044 579
          web: 
           http://judyredman.wordpress.com/
          email: 
           jredman2@...
           

           

          From: gthomas@yahoogroups.com [mailto:gthomas@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of M.W. Grondin
          Sent: Wednesday, 13 April 2011 4:08 AM
          To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: Re: [GTh] Morpheme Separation in Layton Book

           

           

          Hi Rick,

           

          As to the alternate naming conventions that Layton uses, I haven't gotten far enough

          into the book to form any opinion on that. I've only skimmed a few random passages,

          and so far, so good. His instincts about what needs explaining and how to explain it

          seem much in line with my own. A couple things I notice so far:

           

          1. I like the Coptic font. It looks like Codex II.

           

          2. No answer key to exercises: Lambdin didn't have one either, but Bill Arnal worked

          one up. Wonder if he'll do the same for Layton?

           

          3. Layton's dictionary (which is basically why I cracked the book open) doesn't begin to

          compare with Lambdin's, which is about 150 pages. Evidently not one of the things that

          Layton was interested in doing in this book.

           

          As to the type of divider used, I'm not fond of Layton's dashes - not because they're

          dashes, but because they're very wide dashes. Since they're wider than the space

          between words, I think that the eye tends to see them as the divider between words,

          rather than the inter-word space. Maybe the eye will eventually get used to it, but as a

          general rule, I would think that whatever intra-word divider is used should be narrower

          than the spacing between words. (In the case of the "raised dot" that I use, it was more

          the result of the limitations of the font used at the time than a conscious choice

          between alternatives, but compared with a wide dash, it's much less intrusive.)

           

          Mike

        • M.W. Grondin
          G day Judy, What a pleasure to hear from you again! Just to clarify a couple book references: (1) Your reference to Smith was, I take it, to Richard Smith s
          Message 4 of 13 , Apr 26, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            G'day Judy,
            What a pleasure to hear from you again! Just to clarify a couple book references:
            (1) Your reference to "Smith" was, I take it, to Richard Smith's Concise Coptic-English
            Lexicon (1983)? If that's it, I myself have it, but I'm not sure that it's all that well-known.
            (For those thinking to purchase, it should probably be said that, as the title implies, it's a
            short book - less complete in fact than the glossary in Lambdin's Intro to Sahidic Coptic.)
             
            (2) As you know, there are two Layton books that we might be talking about here, and
            I want to make sure that folks know which one is being described at any given point
            in time. Your reference was to Layton's Coptic Grammar (2004), which I personally
            don't have - probably because it's considerably more expensive ($117 vs. $27 on Amazon)
            than the Layton Coptic book which I do have (and was talking about earlier), namely
            Coptic in 20 Lessons (2006). I don't know whether Layton's Grammar has those extra-wide
            dashes I was talking about between morphemes (the width may be the result of some publishing
            standard), but as to alphabetizing, 20 Lessons doesn't use the Crum order. The only list of words
            is a "Reference List of Coptic Forms" discussed in the text, and that list is in Lambdin order.
             
            Another key place where the Crum system of alphabetizing is found is in Stephen Emmel's
            "Indexes of Words" in Layton's critical edition of Codex II, 2-7 (1989). Although I've
            never gotten used to the Crum system, Emmel's list of words for GTh was invaluable
            in my initial work on the interlinear, and now again lately as I've been working on
            http://www.gospel-thomas.net/keywords.htm (about 80% complete, I figure).
             
            Cheers,
            Mike
          • Rick Hubbard
            Hi Judy- Good to see that you are alive and well, whether in Albury or elsewhere. FWIW, maybe I can point out that Layton apparently uses two schemes of
            Message 5 of 13 , Apr 26, 2011
            • 0 Attachment

              Hi Judy-

               

              Good to see that you are alive and well, whether in Albury or elsewhere.

               

              FWIW, maybe I can point out that Layton apparently uses two schemes of alphabetization (is that a word?). For the glossary to the Coptic chrestomathy (pages 453-464) he follows the convention used in Crum (i.e., ordered by root) but in the “Select Coptic Index” (pp. 501-520) he arranges the words in Greek sequence followed by the six Egyptian glyphs. The index in the Twenty Lessons learning grammar appears to be an abbreviated version of the “Select Index” in his reference grammar.

               

              Also, FWIW, I’m working on a concise conversion table that cross references Layton’s-Lambdin’s-Plumley’s grammatical terms, but note that there is already a cross index in the back of  Brankaer’s Learning Grammar (all of 1 ½ pages) for those who don’t want to wait for me to finish it up. I first became interested in doing this when I acquired a copy of Greg Sterling’s Coptic Paradigms and had a devil of a time trying to cross reference the verb paradigm charts in Lambdin with those in Sterling. I agree that the newer classification system better describes the “working” of the language but we old-school types have a bit of a re-learning curve to face.

               

               

               

              Cheers,

              Rick Hubbard

               

              From: gthomas@yahoogroups.com [mailto:gthomas@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Judy Redman
              Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 7:13 AM
              To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: RE: [GTh] Morpheme Separation in Layton Book

               

               

              After a break of quite some time ( a year or so), I am just about to plunge back into my doctorate, which means polishing up my Coptic, which was sadly neglected while I was working in an entirely other field. Fortunately, one of my local colleagues (I am now living in Albury, at the other end of the state, although still a student at UNE) is fascinated by old languages and has said she’d like to learn Coptic.  Mind you, this all happened while we were wandering the streets of North Albury on an ecumenical stations of the cross – she may change her mind when she has had a chance to think it through more carefully. J We will be using Layton, I think, for a number of reasons. One is that April DeConick has been using it since it came out and is impressed by it; another is that I would like to get my head around Layton’s classifications. A third is that Layton’s glossary uses the same system of alphabetising that Crum uses, which will make it easier for her to learn to use Crum. Lambin’s glossary is much easier for English-first-language people to find words in, but many people then find it really difficult to find words in Crum or Smith.

               

              Layton isn’t the only one to use them and probably not even the first – Ariel Shisha-Halevy was talking about durative sentences etc in his Coptic Grammatical Chrestomathy - A Course for Academic and Private Study, which was published in 1988.  They argue that this system better describes how Coptic works, now that people have had several decades to examine the Nag Hamadi texts. The index to Layton’s grammar provides a guide to the equivalences between the terms, in that when you look up the older name, it will point you to the new one. I know that the grammar is prohibitively expensive for those who are not employed in the field, but I would be very happy to scan and email a copy of the index to anyone who has more spare time than I do and would be prepared to produce a concise reference table of equivalent terms. J

               

              Regards

               

              Judy

               

              --

              Judy Redman
              PhD Candidate, School of Humanities
              University of New England
              Armidale 2351 Australia
              ph:  +61 2 6773 3401
              mob: 0437 044 579
              web:  http://judyredman.wordpress.com/
              email:  jredman2@...
               

               

              From: gthomas@yahoogroups.com [mailto:gthomas@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of M.W. Grondin
              Sent: Wednesday, 13 April 2011 4:08 AM
              To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: [GTh] Morpheme Separation in Layton Book

               

               

              Hi Rick,

               

              As to the alternate naming conventions that Layton uses, I haven't gotten far enough

              into the book to form any opinion on that. I've only skimmed a few random passages,

              and so far, so good. His instincts about what needs explaining and how to explain it

              seem much in line with my own. A couple things I notice so far:

               

              1. I like the Coptic font. It looks like Codex II.

               

              2. No answer key to exercises: Lambdin didn't have one either, but Bill Arnal worked

              one up. Wonder if he'll do the same for Layton?

               

              3. Layton's dictionary (which is basically why I cracked the book open) doesn't begin to

              compare with Lambdin's, which is about 150 pages. Evidently not one of the things that

              Layton was interested in doing in this book.

               

              As to the type of divider used, I'm not fond of Layton's dashes - not because they're

              dashes, but because they're very wide dashes. Since they're wider than the space

              between words, I think that the eye tends to see them as the divider between words,

              rather than the inter-word space. Maybe the eye will eventually get used to it, but as a

              general rule, I would think that whatever intra-word divider is used should be narrower

              than the spacing between words. (In the case of the "raised dot" that I use, it was more

              the result of the limitations of the font used at the time than a conscious choice

              between alternatives, but compared with a wide dash, it's much less intrusive.)

               

              Mike

            • M.W. Grondin
              Hi Rick, You wrote that the convention used in Crum is an ordering by root. My understanding of the Crum ordering is that it s primarily by consonants, and
              Message 6 of 13 , Apr 26, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi Rick,
                 
                You wrote that the convention used in Crum is an ordering by root. My understanding
                of the Crum ordering is that it's primarily by consonants, and then within that by vowels.
                As an example, all the words whose sole consonants are 'M' and 'R' will be grouped
                together, and then that group will be sorted by whatever vowels the individual words contain.
                I believe the reasoning behind this is that different forms of a Coptic root often have variations
                of vowels, but not nearly so often of consonants. In any case, I think that both systems sort
                by root, but that the one (Lambdin) is strictly alphabetical, while the Crum system is this
                special consonant-vowel thingy.
                 
                Cheers,
                Mike
              • Judy Redman
                Hi Mike, Sorry to be a bit cryptic. (1) Your reference to Smith was, I take it, to Richard Smith s Concise Coptic-English Lexicon (1983)? If that s it, I
                Message 7 of 13 , Apr 27, 2011
                • 0 Attachment

                   

                   

                  Hi Mike,

                   

                  Sorry to be a bit cryptic.
                   

                  (1) Your reference to "Smith" was, I take it, to Richard Smith's Concise Coptic-English

                  Lexicon (1983)? If that's it, I myself have it, but I'm not sure that it's all that well-known.

                  (For those thinking to purchase, it should probably be said that, as the title implies, it's a

                  short book - less complete in fact than the glossary in Lambdin's Intro to Sahidic Coptic.)

                   

                  [>]

                  [>] Yes, this is the Smith I meant. In some ways I find it more comprehensive than the Lambdin glossary – he tends to list a wider range of possible translations of some of those little words than Lambdin does in the glossary. They’re all there somewhere, but not necessarily in the same place.

                   

                  (2) Your reference was to Layton's Coptic Grammar (2004), which I personally

                  don't have - probably because it's considerably more expensive ($117 vs. $27 on Amazon)

                  than the Layton Coptic book which I do have (and was talking about earlier), namely

                  Coptic in 20 Lessons (2006).

                   

                  [>] Yes, I was talking about the Grammar, not the 20 Lessons (except where I said that I thought my colleague and I would use Layton rather than Lambdin – Layton’s Grammar is definitely not intended as a learning resource for the beginner, and yes, it’s horribly expensive. I thought very hard before buying my copy, but I had some photocopied pages and was constantly wanting to refer to other parts of it, so I finally decided I needed a copy.

                   

                  I don't know whether Layton's Grammar has those extra-wide

                  dashes I was talking about between morphemes (the width may be the result of some publishing

                  standard),

                   

                  [>] Yes, it has the wide dashes.

                  but as to alphabetizing, 20 Lessons doesn't use the Crum order. The only list of words

                  is a "Reference List of Coptic Forms" discussed in the text, and that list is in Lambdin order.

                   

                  [>] Oops. I just had a look at the Coptic index in the back of Layton’s Grammar and it also uses the Lambdin order, not the Crum order.

                   

                  Another key place where the Crum system of alphabetizing is found is in Stephen Emmel's

                  "Indexes of Words" in Layton's critical edition of Codex II, 2-7 (1989).

                   

                  [>] I suspect that Lambdin was the first to use the Greek alphabetising system – my PhD supervisor started learning Coptic from an earlier book, the name of which currently escapes me, and finished it off using Till in Germany when she was a Humboldt scholar and her criticism of Lambdin was that it didn’t use the traditional Coptic alphabetical order. Plumley (http://www.metalog.org/files/plumley.html) seems to have used the Crum system in his Coptic Grammar, too.

                   

                  Judy

                • Judy Redman
                  Hi Rick FWIW, maybe I can point out that Layton apparently uses two schemes of alphabetization (is that a word?). For the glossary to the Coptic chrestomathy
                  Message 8 of 13 , Apr 27, 2011
                  • 0 Attachment

                     

                    Hi Rick

                     FWIW, maybe I can point out that Layton apparently uses two schemes of alphabetization (is that a word?). For the glossary to the Coptic chrestomathy (pages 453-464) he follows the convention used in Crum (i.e., ordered by root) but in the “Select Coptic Index” (pp. 501-520) he arranges the words in Greek sequence followed by the six Egyptian glyphs. The index in the Twenty Lessons learning grammar appears to be an abbreviated version of the “Select Index” in his reference grammar.

                    [>] Didn’t notice this until I’d responded to Mike – this is quite odd, really, isn’t it?

                    Also, FWIW, I’m working on a concise conversion table that cross references Layton’s-Lambdin’s-Plumley’s grammatical terms, but note that there is already a cross index in the back of  Brankaer’s Learning Grammar (all of 1 ½ pages) for those who don’t want to wait for me to finish it up. I first became interested in doing this when I acquired a copy of Greg Sterling’s Coptic Paradigms and had a devil of a time trying to cross reference the verb paradigm charts in Lambdin with those in Sterling. I agree that the newer classification system better describes the “working” of the language but we old-school types have a bit of a re-learning curve to face.

                    [>] This is good to hear and I look forward to the results of your work. I might have to invest in a copy of Brankaer, though, if it’s not too horribly expensive – I have Sterling. I have lots of books that I bought just before I finished my last chaplaincy that I haven’t had time to look at properly.

                    Regards

                     

                    Judy

                    --

                    Judy Redman
                    PhD Candidate, School of Humanities
                    University of New England
                    Armidale 2351 Australia
                    ph:  +61 2 6773 3401
                    mob: 0437 044 579
                    web: 
                     http://judyredman.wordpress.com/
                    email: 
                     jredman2@...
                     

                    __

                  • Rick Hubbard
                    Hi Mike- You are precisely correct- the dictionary IS arranged by consonant then by vowel. Apologies for the mis-information. Rick Hubbard
                    Message 9 of 13 , Apr 27, 2011
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Hi Mike-

                      You are precisely correct- the dictionary IS arranged by consonant then by
                      vowel. Apologies for the mis-information.

                      Rick Hubbard



                      On Wed, April 27, 2011 12:37 am, M.W. Grondin wrote:
                      | Hi Rick,
                      |
                      | You wrote that the convention used in Crum is an ordering by root. My
                      | understanding
                      | of the Crum ordering is that it's primarily by consonants, and then within
                      | that by vowels.
                      | As an example, all the words whose sole consonants are 'M' and 'R' will be
                      | grouped
                      | together, and then that group will be sorted by whatever vowels the
                      | individual words contain.
                      | I believe the reasoning behind this is that different forms of a Coptic
                      | root often have variations
                      | of vowels, but not nearly so often of consonants. In any case, I think
                      | that both systems sort
                      | by root, but that the one (Lambdin) is strictly alphabetical, while the
                      | Crum system is this
                      | special consonant-vowel thingy.
                      |
                      | Cheers,
                      | Mike
                    • Rick Hubbard
                      Hi Judy, et al; Your remark about the high price tag on Layton s reference grammar is well taken, but I just did a little checking to see what the current
                      Message 10 of 13 , Apr 27, 2011
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Hi Judy, et al;

                        Your remark about the high price tag on Layton's reference grammar is well
                        taken, but I just did a little checking to see what the current street
                        price might be. Used copies are actually selling for **more** than the
                        retail of a new one (up to $175 US on ABE), but I was astounded to see
                        that there is a 3rd edition of the grammar that is to be released on April
                        30th for a "mere" $82 on Amazon. If your colleague is a bit put off by the
                        $100 plus price tag, maybe this will take some of the sting out of the
                        purchase. I have a hunch (just because I'm cynical about the book
                        publishing business) that after the book is released its price will bounce
                        back up to $100 plus.

                        But this brings me to another question: Why so many editions? The grammar
                        first appeared in 2004, then a second edition appeared in 2007 and now we
                        have a 3rd edition in 2011. All I could find about the 3rd edition is that
                        it contains some "corrections". I wonder what needed to be corrected?
                        IIRC, I spotted some typo's in the second edition, but I can't imagine
                        they would publish a third edition just for that, can you?

                        Rick Hubbard
                      • M.W. Grondin
                        Seems my description of the Crum ordering system was flawed. The first letter of a root is the basic sort, and that proceeds in standard Coptic alphabetic
                        Message 11 of 13 , Apr 27, 2011
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Seems my description of the Crum ordering system was flawed. The first letter of a
                          root is the basic sort, and that proceeds in standard Coptic alphabetic order (which is
                          the same as Greek order for the first 24 letters, then the six (Sahidic) additional letters. 
                          The consonant-vowel thingy comes into play only within each set of roots that all start
                          with the same letter. Sorry about that. Hope I've got it right this time.
                           
                          Mike G.
                        • Judy Redman
                          Rick, Thanks for this information. I share your cynicism about the book publishing industry and the likely post-publication price hike and am not sure that I
                          Message 12 of 13 , Apr 28, 2011
                          • 0 Attachment

                            Rick,

                             

                            Thanks for this information.

                             

                            I share your cynicism about the book publishing industry and the likely post-publication price hike and am not sure that I need the third edition unless the corrections are pretty extensive or significant. Even though the Australian dollar is running very much at parity with the US one at the moment, the added postage still makes it pretty expensive.  I suspect that my colleague probably still won’t buy it because her particular area of research is Hebrew Bible – she is fascinated by languages and is excited by the possibility of learning another one, but I don’t imagine she wants or needs to go to the kind of depth that the Layton Grammar gets into.

                             

                            I have noticed that when a book is out of print, there is a lot of profiteering on second hand editions. When Crum was out of print, the second hand ones on Amazon were around $100 US more than the new ones were selling at only a few months beforehand. I got mine at a quite reasonable price (ie about half that of the new price) from an antiquarian bookseller in the Netherlands.

                             

                            Incidentally, has anyone bought one of the softcover copies of Crum – the Wipf and Stock edition? I think it’s wonderful that they’ve brought it back into print and that it’s affordable but wonder how durable such a huge volume will be in softcover.

                             

                            Regards

                             

                            Judy

                             

                            --

                            Judy Redman
                            PhD Candidate, School of Humanities
                            University of New England
                            Armidale 2351 Australia
                            ph:  +61 2 6773 3401
                            mob: 0437 044 579
                            web: 
                             http://judyredman.wordpress.com/
                            email: 
                             jredman2@...
                             

                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.