A Reference Guide to the Westminster Hebrew Morphology Database 1 Westminster Hebrew Institute Westminster Theological Seminary Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Documents Release 4.4 June 30, 2005 General Introduction The Westminster Hebrew Morphology Database (MORPH) is, up to version 5.0, a simple ASCII file, containing approximately a half-million records (approximately 13MB), each record repre- senting a morpheme of the Hebrew Bible. Westminster Theological Seminary is the owner, main- tainer and distributer of MORPH. Its three editors are Prof. Alan Groves, (Executive Director, Westminster Hebrew Institute), Prof. Dale Wheeler (Multnomah Bible College) and Prof. Kirk Lowery (Director, Westminster Hebrew Institute). Stephen K. Salisbury (Assistant Director, Westminster Hebrew Institute) is the assistant editor of MORPH. Some of the characteristics of this database are: MORPH generally follows the Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (HALOT), Ludwig Koehler, Walter Baumgartner and Johann Jakob Stamm, eds. (2001) in matters of lemmas and parsing where such matters are either unambigu- ous or arbitrary. However, where we feel HALOT is in (substantive or typographic) error or is inconsistent we have not hesitated to deviate. MORPH does not use or follow Strong’s lemma numbering. (HALOT is the English translation of the original German reference work Hebräisches und aramäisches Lexicon zum Alten Testa- ment (HALAT), Ludwig Koehler, Walter Baumgartner and Johann Jakob Stamm, eds. (3 rd . Edition, E. J. Brill, 1967-96). MORPH generally follows the dictum “parse what is written not what is meant .” This means we try to parse a morpheme based upon its external form apart from any consultation with the wider context in which the morpheme stands. Ambiguity frus- trates this goal and often forces us to parse contextually, e.g., in the case of segho- late noun state. Ketiv words can be particularly difficult to parse since they do not have explicit pointing and often appear (or at least did appear to the massoretic scribes) to be minor spelling mistakes. Sometimes the parsing of a morpheme depends upon text-critical or philological (comparative semitic, etc.) criteria. In most of these cases, MORPH parses accord- ing to the massoretic textual tradition. MORPH attempts to vocalize and parse ketiv as well as qere. In all matters of textual reading, the Leningrad Codex is our final ar- biter: MORPH is the morphology of the language attested in that manuscript. MORPH does not follow exclusively any one authority for grammar and parsing. All the standard grammars – ancient and modern – are consulted: GKC, Joüon/Murao- ka, van der Merwe, Bauer-Leander, Bergsträsser and Waltke-O'Connor – to mention just the most commonly used sources. For Aramaic, Bauer-Leander, Segert Altaramäische Grammatik, and Rosenthal A Grammar of Biblical Aramaic are the most frequently consulted. 1 This document replaces all previous documentation, beginning with Release 4.0. See the ReleaseNotes file for specific changes not covered in this document. Together, these two documents contain a complete description of Release 4.4. MORPH Release 4.4 1 Document Version: 1.4
Transcript
A Reference Guide to theWestminster Hebrew Morphology Database1
The Westminster Hebrew Morphology Database (MORPH) is, up to version 5.0, a simple ASCIIfile, containing approximately a half-million records (approximately 13MB), each record repre-senting a morpheme of the Hebrew Bible. Westminster Theological Seminary is the owner, main-tainer and distributer of MORPH. Its three editors are Prof. Alan Groves, (Executive Director,Westminster Hebrew Institute), Prof. Dale Wheeler (Multnomah Bible College) and Prof. KirkLowery (Director, Westminster Hebrew Institute). Stephen K. Salisbury (Assistant Director,Westminster Hebrew Institute) is the assistant editor of MORPH.
Some of the characteristics of this database are:
MORPH generally follows the Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament(HALOT), Ludwig Koehler, Walter Baumgartner and Johann Jakob Stamm, eds.(2001) in matters of lemmas and parsing where such matters are either unambigu-ous or arbitrary. However, where we feel HALOT is in (substantive or typographic)error or is inconsistent we have not hesitated to deviate. MORPH does not use orfollow Strong’s lemma numbering. (HALOT is the English translation of the originalGerman reference work Hebräisches und aramäisches Lexicon zum Alten Testa-ment (HALAT), Ludwig Koehler, Walter Baumgartner and Johann Jakob Stamm,eds. (3rd. Edition, E. J. Brill, 1967-96).
MORPH generally follows the dictum “parse what is written not what is meant.” Thismeans we try to parse a morpheme based upon its external form apart from anyconsultation with the wider context in which the morpheme stands. Ambiguity frus-trates this goal and often forces us to parse contextually, e.g., in the case of segho-late noun state. Ketiv words can be particularly difficult to parse since they do nothave explicit pointing and often appear (or at least did appear to the massoreticscribes) to be minor spelling mistakes.
Sometimes the parsing of a morpheme depends upon text-critical or philological(comparative semitic, etc.) criteria. In most of these cases, MORPH parses accord-ing to the massoretic textual tradition. MORPH attempts to vocalize and parse ketivas well as qere. In all matters of textual reading, the Leningrad Codex is our final ar-biter: MORPH is the morphology of the language attested in that manuscript.
MORPH does not follow exclusively any one authority for grammar and parsing. Allthe standard grammars – ancient and modern – are consulted: GKC, Joüon/Murao-ka, van der Merwe, Bauer-Leander, Bergsträsser and Waltke-O'Connor – to mentionjust the most commonly used sources. For Aramaic, Bauer-Leander, SegertAltaramäische Grammatik, and Rosenthal A Grammar of Biblical Aramaic are themost frequently consulted.
1This document replaces all previous documentation, beginning with Release 4.0. See the ReleaseNotes file for specificchanges not covered in this document. Together, these two documents contain a complete description of Release 4.4.
MORPH Release 4.4 1 Document Version: 1.4
We now distribute the database as one file. This is how we handle the data in-houseand our feeling is that any attempt to split it into smaller files introduces unnecessaryrisk of inadvertent data loss or corruption.
As a further effort to maintain not only data integrity but also to keep versions of thedatabase separate, beginning with version 3.5 we now distribute our releases withan MD5 checksum number which uniquely identifies this release from all others.Even if one bit is changed, the checksum will change and not match the canonicalrelease number.
This database was first conceived and built during the 1980s. As it has matured, we have foundit necessary to add to and change the data record structure. At that time a flat ASCII file was theonly acceptable “lowest common denominator” for maintenance and distribution. However, wehave continuously wrestled with the problem of auditing and maintaining change deltas, espe-cially as time and personnel have come and gone. In that time the world has seen the introduc-tion of the Internet and the World Wide Web. In addition, our long-range plans for the database’sexpansion call for significantly more complex data structures.
To resolve these issues, WHI is taking the following action:
The 4.x series of releases will continue to be in the legacy format. After 5.0, wewill provide a "legacy" version, but it will not have the new information addedto the database
With MORPH (5.0) the distributed database format will change to an XML encoding,including a DTD/Schema, XSLT transformations to generate HTML, and a basic XSLstylesheet
The distributed file will be available in both Michigan encoded Hebrew and UTF-8Hebrew encoding (allowing proper display of Hebrew text in any UTF-8 compliantapplication: browser, word processor, etc.)
Monitor and comply with the final recommendations of the newly formed Open Scrip-tural Information Standard (OSIS) <http://www.bibletechnologies.org>, which wesupport
The advantages of these actions for the developer will be:
The addition of new possibilities for display formats in applications, including the cre-ation of browser-based applications taking advantage of XML flexibility
Vastly increased interoperability between applications that support the above-men-tioned standards and technologies, as well as ease of data format transformation bynot only WHI, but also by the user
Seamless integration with a Windows 2000 / Windows XP environment which usesUnicode natively as its character encoding
The elimination of font issues The addition of significant new features, such as user annotation of data which then
becomes searchable
These changes will free WHI of the shackles of its obsolescent data model and allow us to great-ly expand the type and complexity of information provided. For example, we plan on systemati-cally recording the reasons or authority for the parsing or textual reading we make. Such annota-tions and alternate parsing could be easily incorporated into the distributed database for greatlyenhanced value and usability.
Long-range plans are, by their very nature, subject to change. Nevertheless, we want to give thedeveloper community a "heads up!” about our intentions and the direction we want to go. We areintensely aware of the need for timely notification of major changes such as this. As soon as de-
MORPH Release 4.4 2 Document Version: 1.4
cisions are made for each action and the details have been worked out, we will be inform thecommunity about those changes.
MORPH Record Format
There are two basic kind of records in MORPH: a verse separation record and a morphemerecord. The verse separation record begins with an angle bracket or "greater-than" sign: ">" fol-lowed by the standard chapter and verse enumeration, following the Leningrad Codex versifica-tion. This record has no other purpose than to visually set off verses for human readers.
A morpheme record is composed of three fields separated by spaces, so that the followingrecord
gn1:1,3.1 ):ELOHI92YM ):ELOHIYM@ncmpa
is understood to be
Record ID Hebrew Text Parsinggn1:1,3.1 ):ELOHI92YM ):ELOHIYM@ncmpa
The Record ID is field composed thus:
Book Chapter Separator Verse Separator Positionin Verse
Separator Positionin Word
gn 1 : 1 , 3 . 1
that is, a book name of two characters followed without a separator by the chapter number, fol-lowed by a colon, and then the word's position in the verse. If the word is composed of morethan one morpheme, then a period or dot following the word number and the final number indi-cates the position of the morpheme within the word.
The order of books in the database follow the order of the Leningrad Codex, which varies fromthe traditional rabbinic canon by positioning Chronicles after the prophets. The possible valuesfor a book name are:
gn Genesis 2k 2Kings na Nahum pr Proverbsex Exodus is Isaiah hb Habakkuk ru Ruthlv Leviticus je Jeremiah zp Zephaniah ca Song of Songsnu Numbers ek Ezekiel hg Haggai ec Ecclesiastesdt Deuteronomy ho Hosea zc Zechariah lm Lamentationsjs Joshua jl Joel ma Malachi es Estherju Judges am Amos 1c 1Chronicles da Daniel1s 1Samuel ob Obadiah 2c 2Chronicles er Ezra2s 2Samuel jn Jonah ps Psalms ne Nehemiah1k 1Kings mi Micah jb Job
Chapter and verse numbers can go to three digits. Word position in verse and morpheme posi-tion in word can go to two digits. Note that the book order is not English (Vulgate), nor Rabbinic(Miqraot Gedelot), but in the order of the Leningrad Codex. The difference between the Rabbiniccanonical order and the Leningrad Codex is slight: a shift of Chronicles to right after Job.
There is an optional note field attached to the end of a Record ID, marked by a closed bracket"]" plus a number or letter. References to two-digit numbers are accents. (Accents were added inthe release 4.2.) The follow chart lists the meanings of those notes:
MORPH Release 4.4 3 Document Version: 1.4
Note Meaning Example
]1
BHS has been faithful to theLeningrad Codex where there mightbe a question of the validity of theform and we keep the same form asBHS.
]mMiscellaneous notes to the text andoccasions where more than onebracket category applies.
ex20:4,4.1]m PE7433SEL0305 P.ESEL@ncmsa
The Hebrew Text field is the morpheme itself, as found in the biblical text. Generally a "word"is given its own record. However, if there are waw's, the prepositions -b], -k], -l], -m], the relative
particle -v,, the definite article -h', etc., these are broken off the word, and each is given its ownrecord line.
MORPH Release 4.4 4 Document Version: 1.4
The transliteration scheme used is the Michigan encoding scheme.
The following table lists the codes used:
Consonants Vowels
Hebrew Westminster Hebrew Westminster
Alef a ) Patah b' A
Bet b B Qamets b; F
Gimel g G Segol b, E
Dalet d D Sere be "
Heh h H Hireq bi I
Waw w W Holem bo O
Zayin z Z Qamets Hatuf b; F
Het j X Qibbuts bu U
Tet f + Shureq W W.
Yod y Y Shewa b] :
Kaf û k K Hatef Patah b} :A
Lamed l L Hatef Segol bÔ :E
Mem µ m M Hatef Qamets bÕ :F
Nun ÷ n NSamek s S Miscellaneous
Ayin [ (
Peh ¹ p P Ketiv *
Sade Å x C Qere **
Qof q Q Dagesh .
Resh r R Maqqef -
Sin c & Accent 00 03 75 etc.
Shin v $ Compound Joint(a space in BHS)
~
Tav t T Affix/Suffix Separator /
A Hebrew word is constructed by beginning with a (required) consonant, followed by an optionaldagesh (if any), followed by a (required) vowel, followed by an optional accent marker, followedby an optional consonant (in the case of a closed syllable). No distinction is made between medi-al and final consonants, qamets and qamets hatuf, vocal and silent shewa or dagesh forte anddagesh lene.
The Parsing portion of the record is separated into two parts: the lemma and the morphology.The separator is an "at" sign (@) for Hebrew lemmas and a percent sign (%) for Aramaic lemmas.
MORPH Release 4.4 5 Document Version: 1.4
The Lemma field is very similar to the Hebrew Text field. If HALAT shows more than onehomonym for a lemma, a "_1" is added to the end of the first lemma dealt with in HALAT, "_2" tothe second lemma and so forth. If there are no homonyms for a lemma, no homonym number isadded, for it is a unique lemma. Some examples:
2nd and 5th homonyms of Hebrew lemmasaccording to HALOT
Unique Hebrew lemma ex20:4,11.3 )F6373REC )EREC@ncfsaUnique Aramaic lemma er4:12,7.1 S:LI33QW.03 SLQ%vNp3mp2nd homonym of an Aramaic lemmaaccording to HALOT
er5:1,6.1 BAR- B.AR_2%ncmsc
The Morphology field follows after the lemma separator.
There are six categories of records: (1) paragraphing, (2) particle, (3) pronoun, (4) noun, (5) ad-jective or numeral and (6) verb. A seventh category, suffixes, cannot stand alone, but appear at-tached to the end of prepositions, nouns or verbs. Here are some interpreted examples of eachcategory:
1. Paragraphinggn1:5,14.1 P P@xThe "lemma” here is artificial. "x" stands for paragraphing.
2. ParticleWhen the article appears by itself with an accent. note the noun which it modifies shares thesame word number, in this case "6-". The article is word-part "-.1" and the noun is word-part "-.2". The lemmas is "HA", it is a Hebrew lemma "@", and the parsing is "Particle-Article".
The noun is the second part of word 6 in verse 16 of Genesis 49. Its Hebrew lemma is"MI$:P.:TAYIM" and its parsing is "Noun-Common-Masculine-Dual-Absolute".
A definite article with inseparable preposition prior to Release 4.0 was tagged with "+Pa" atthe end of the analysis for the preposition. Beginning with Release 4.0, when the 'H' is notpresent, this occurrence of the article receives a line to itself.
gn49:11,2.1 LA L:@Ppgn49:11,2.2 _ HA@Pagn49:11,2.3 G.E33PEN03 G.EPEN@ncbsa
The text is the 2nd word of the 11th verse of the 49th chapter of Genesis. Part 1 has "LA" asthe Hebrew text, "L:" for the Hebrew lemma, and is a "Particle-Preposition". Part 2has been given the "dummy" Hebrew text of underscore, "_", parsed as "Particle-Arti-cle" which represents the assimilated 'H'.
The 3rd part of the 2nd word of Genesis 49:11 is, in the Hebrew text, "G.E33PEN03". Notethat the word has two accents, one for each syllable. The word comes from the Hebrew lem-ma "G.EPEN". Its parsing is "Noun-Common-Both-Singuar-Absolute", that is, it is treat-ed by adjectives and verb inflections with both masculine and feminine genders.
2s2:5,8.1 ):AL"Y/HE81M )EL@PpX3mp
MORPH Release 4.4 6 Document Version: 1.4
In 2 Sam 2:5, the 8th word is "):AL"Y/HE81M" which has a morphological slash dividing theword from its suffix. The Hebrew lemma is ")EL" and its parsing is "Particle-Preposi-tion". The parsing of the suffix is signaled by the "X" and is understood to be "3rd Person-Masculine-Plural".
3. Pronoun
2s2:5,10.1 )AT.EM03 )AT.EM@pi2mp
In 2 Sam 2:5, we find the 10th word of the verse to be ")AT.EM03", the accent on the secondsyllable. It is a Hebrew lemma, ")AT.EM", and its parsing is "Pronoun-Independent-2nd
Person-Masculine-Plural".
4. Noun
2s2:5,6.1 YFB"74Y$~G.IL:(F92D YFB"Y$~G.IL:(FD@np
We have already seen examples of common nouns above. In 2 Sam 2:5 the 6th word is acompound proper noun. The text is "YFB"74$~G.IL:(F92D", with the two parts of thecompound name divided by the tilde (~) and are not joined by maqqef. The Hebrew lemma is"(FD" and its parsing is "Noun-Proper".
2s2:5,17.1 ):ADO75N"Y/KEM03 )FDOWN@ncmpcX2mp
In the 1st part of the 17th word of 2 Sam 2:5 we find the Hebrew text "):ADO75N"Y/KEM03".The morphological slash tells us that there is a suffix. The noun's Hebrew lemma is ")FDOWN" and the parsing is "Noun-Common-Masculine-Plural-Construct". And thesuffix parsing after the dividing "X" is "2nd Person-Masculine-Plural".
5. Adjective/Numeral
2s2:17,3.1 QF$F71H QF$EH@afsa
In 2 Sam 2:17, the 3rd word is "QF$F71H" with the accent on the final syllable. The Hebrewlemma is "QF$EH" and we discover that it is an "Adjective-Feminine-Singular-Abso-lute".
2s2:11,14.2 $I$.F71H $"$_1@ucmsa
In this second example, the 2nd part of the 14th word (the 1st part of the 14th word is a wawconjuction) is the word "$I$.F71H" with the 1st listed (in HALOT) homograph Hebrew lemma"$"$". Its parsing is "Cardinal Number-Masculine-Singular-Absolute".
6. Verb
2s2:6,2.1 YA75(A&- (&H_1@vqi3msXa{1}Jt
In 2 Sam 2:6, the 2nd word is "YA75(A&-" from the 1st listed Hebrew homographic lemma(according to HALOT) "(&H". Its parsing is "Verb-Qal Stem-Imperfect-3rd Person-Masculine-Singular-Apocopated-Jussive in Form and Meaning".
is35:4,15.2 YO$A(/:AKE75M00 Y$(@vhi3msXaX2mp{1}Jt
In the 2nd part of the 15th word in Isaiah 35:4 we find the word "YO$A(/:AKE75M00", from theunique Hebrew lemma "Y$(". It is a "Verb-Hifil Stem-Imperfect-3rd Person-Mas-
MORPH Release 4.4 7 Document Version: 1.4
culine-Singular-Apocopated-2nd Person Masculine Plural PronominalSuffix-Jussive in Meaning and Form".
The table below summarizes all the possible values for each field.
MORPH Release 4.4 8 Document Version: 1.4
x paragraph2
P particle a articlec conjunctiond adverbg interrogativei interjectionn negativeo object marker3
p preposition3
r relativep pronoun i independent i interrogative
i independent 1 person m masculine s singular2 person f feminine p plural3 person c common
n noun p proper nameg4 gentilic m masculine s singular a absolutec common f feminine p plural c construct
b both d dual d5 determined [Aramaic only]
a adjective6 m masculine s singularf feminine p pluralb both d dual
Hebrew OR Aramaic more than one suffix possiblev verb q qal A afel p perfect X suffixes a apocopated
p piel B hafel i imperfect h paragogic heP pual H hishtafel w wayyiqtol7 n paragogic nunn nifal S hitpaal v imperative d directional he orh hifil F hitpeel c infinitive construct pronominal he-localeH hofal G hitpolel a infinitive absolute suffixes 1 person m masculine s singularQ qal pass I ishtafel P participle 2 person f feminine p pluralt hitpael L itpeel8 s qal passive participle 3 person c commona palel P polel if imperfect, optional tagb pealal R shafel {1} jussive9 Jt in form & meaningc pilel N peal Jf in form onlyd pilpel M pael Jm in meaning onlye polel O peil cohortative Ct in form & meaningk poel D hofal Cf in form onlym tifil10 Q safal Cm in meaning onlyf polal K itpaal if perfect, optional tagg polpal V itpoel11 {2} consecutive perfecti pulall poalu hotpaalv hitpolelw hitpalpels hishtafelx nitpael
2 P@x, S@x, N@x only3 The object marker and many prepositions optionally take a pronominal suffix.4 Aramaic only5 Aramaic only6 Including numerals7 Or, waw-consecutive8 Used only four times: Dan 2:45; 7:8(2x); 7:159 Only on records which are tagged "imperfect."10 Used only once: Hos 11:311 Only used once: Dan 4:16MORPH Release 4.4 9 Document Version: 1.2
The Ketiv-QereThis massoretic feature presents more challenges to the data structure than any other single fac-tor. First of all, we must list the Ketiv and Qere as separate words (unlike BHS which uses one'nonsense' graphical word to indicate both). Thus word counts in verses with KQ will be skewedby the number of KQ in a verse.
Secondly, there are simply a number of anomalous situations created by trying to account forthis feature within our normal encoding. A list of the kinds of situations follows.
1. Slash ('/') to indicate beginning of suffix in textual entry
All suffixes are attached to the end of the analysis of the form to which they are attachedrather than having a line to themselves. A slash in the text indicates the beginning of thesuffix (these slashes are occasionally omitted or misplaced).
2s2:5,8.1 ):AL"Y/HE81M )EL@PpX3mp
The slash is intentionally omitted for Aramaic nominals with the definite article (deter-mined state).
2. Directional suffix on first word of a compound name
(Potential confusion because directional -he (or he-locale) is suffixed to first in the com-pound and not the second—'/' indicates suffix position and Xd marks the analysis for thedirectional)
Twice in the Psalms and several times in Proverbs, there is both a paragogic nun and anobject suffix which means an analysis will indicate two suffixes.
ps63:4,6.1 Y:$AB.:X75W./N/:KF00 $BX@vpi3mpXnX2ms
4. Article as part of proper names ('//')
In previous versions of Morph, a double slash was used to indicate a definite article aspart of a proper name, but this practice has been discontinued in Morph 4.5.
5. Run-on words (textual corruption in manuscript)
Run-on words (textual critical issue) must be analyzed separately. There is no space ormaqqef in the text and therefore treated as a single orthographic entity but we analyzethem eparately on two lines treating them as one word with two parts.
Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia's editorial policy was to omit raphe consistently, "…other-wise there would have been almost insuperable technical difficulties."12 Nevertheless,raphe does occur in BHS twelve times and is represented in the encoded Hebrew text asa comma, ",":
These occurrences are almost all textual issues, most of them occurring in the Deca-logues of Exodus and Deuteronomy where there is the well-known double punctuation.Since MORPH was based upon the third edition of BHS, these raphes also occur. TheLeningrad Codex uses raphe extensively, and adding those to the Hebrew text ofMORPH is planned for a future release.
9. “Context-bound” constructs
All nominals have now been coded as to its "state,” either “absolute” or “construct.” In thepast, MORPH had only marked “context-free” constructs, that is, those nominals13 whoseform changes between absolute and construct states. Nominals are now contextuallyparsed, and in Morph 4.4, all common nouns have an explicit state, though some adjec-tives and some participles still have do not have an explicit state.
10. Gender issues
12Karl Elliger and Wilhelm Rudolph, "Forward" in Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, p. xii.13Defined as common nouns, adjectives and participles.
MORPH Release 4.4 12 Document Version: 1.4
Extensive gender consistency checks have been made. The results show that Hebrew is in-consistent in marking morphologic, grammatical and pragmatic gender. In a future release,we plan on offering these distinctions.14 For now, when lemmas which are not consistentlyused for one gender are usually parsed “b” for “both.”
11. Preposition + article + nominal15
In theory, MORPH divides Hebrew words into their relevant morphemes, one record permorpheme. In practice there are inconsistencies. One of those is the case when a definitearticle is assimilated if it occurs between a preposition and a nominal. It is only a phonemicchange. The definite article is still there and is known by the patach or qamets of the prepo-sition and the doubling of the first consonant of the nominal. From a data modeling point ofview, the definite article deserves its own record. Otherwise, when a user is querying definitearticles, one must remember about this special case. We cannot assume that level of knowl-edge on the part of the user. For example,
Since HALAT is our standard for lemmas (and part of speech), we spell verbal lemmas asHALAT does: the lemma consists of the three or four root consonants, omitting vowels,dageshes or shewa in final kaf. For non-verbal lemmas, also in accordance with HALATpractice, begadkefat dageshes, silent shewa in final kaf and full vocalization are included inthe spelling.
13. Aramaic gentilic
Following an analysis of the morphology of gentilic forms in biblical Aramaic, we have ex-tended the parsing of gentilics to include number and determined (the Aramaic definite arti-cle). Example parsings:
ng - noun, gentilics or p - singular or plurald or 0 (null) - determined or undetermined
i.e.,
%ngs%ngsd%ngp%ngpd
The gentilic is simply another noun class, parallel to common and proper nouns. The codesused for these features are the same as for the common nouns, but is a more restricted setin that state (absolute and construct) is not parsed.
14Cf. Van der Merwe, et. al, A Hebrew Reference Grammar, §24.2.15A nominal is linguistic jargon for what philology would call a “substantive.” In the case of Hebrew, this includes nouns, ad-jectives and participles used as nouns.
