Jump to content

Thread on Logos Forum


tony10000
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

Sorry about the thread derail, but I remember reporting a handful of errors and typos in the HALOT (Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament) by Koehler-Baumgartner using the Report a Correction a week ago - but seeing that I wanted to report them all in one go, I didn't highlight the relevant sections first. Instead I wrote down the page numbers (rather than the paragraph numbers) and also quoted the mistakes manually. Does that mean I have to do it over, or did my report get through?I am sure that

 

I am sure that when we get around to updating HALOT we will be able to figure out your corrections. Thanks for sending them in.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We will introduce very soon a custom upgrade to all the collections and some other bundles that will only charge you for the new modules you are acquiring. That should help the upgrades. We occasionally offer pre-pub specials. We do not have plans to introduce community pricing.

  • Like 13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking forward to this and any new stuff in the pipeline!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We will introduce very soon a custom upgrade to all the collections and some other bundles that will only charge you for the new modules you are acquiring. ...

 

Great! Good idea.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been using Accordance since 1995 and don't find any of the claims (excluding #3, since I use a Mac) accurate when properly contextualized (e.g., all programs have more stable and less stable iterations). And I've had Logos since 2005.

 

But, frankly, I find the whole comparative exercise to be slightly unseemly, as has been just about all the various comparative threads, excepting only those that are open-ended questions from people trying to decide which direction to do. There will be die-hards of both software packages (think Apple and Samsung for phones) and others should simply decide based on whatever variables are important to them.

 

The initial poster in the Logos forum could have take the high road and simply thanked Logos for what he appreciated about their product, rather than establishing such a negative and fruitless trajectory at the outset. The way it was formulated sullied any subsequent reader.

 

Can we end this thread now?

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

David,

I was referring,of course, to my own subjective impression of pricing on logos and accordance for modules that interested me.

 

Take for example, the logos price on the Anchor Yale Bible Commentary series (86 volumes) at $1969.95 vs the price on accordance which is on sale right now $999!

 

A VERY big difference!

 

 

That is not a fair comparison.You need to compare regular prices with regular prices and not temporary sales to make your point.

 

AYBC in Accordance is regularly $1,499 and is on sale for $999. In Logos is $1,969. So yes, in this case there is a difference but not of $1,000 as you make it look.

 

Some regular prices will be in occasion more in one place and vice versa. And occasionally you can get great deal with either one like the AYBC in your case and the WBC in my case with Accordance and the AYBD for $189 in my case with Logos.

 

One thing that Logos offer is that when you call you can get deals not advertised on the website and you can frequently tell them what you want and they are able to put together special deals for you. I know that some people complain that Logos is very business-like and some think they are hard salesman. perhaps, but thanks to that approach I have gotten great deals and that is one of the reason my library is always expanding in Logos with Books that I want and unfortunately not with Accordance.

 

 

Lets take other examples

 

Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary:

Accordance: $269 Logos $269 (I recently bought it at logos for $189)

 

Bible Speak Today

Accordance $91.90 and Logos $99.65 (I bought at logos for $69)

 

Little Kittel

Accordance: $69.90 Logos: $56.95

 

Big Kittel

Accordance $249 Logos $199

 

NIVAC

Accordance $1,138 Logos: $949

 

 

Baker Exegetical

Accordance $729 Logos $729.25

 

Pillar Commentary

Accordance (14 volumes) : $399 Logos (15 Volumes): $524 (I got it at logos for $299 on a sale and have with Accordance as part of the collection which is pretty nice).

 

NAC

Accordance: $549 Logos $509

 

My point is that you need to go resource by resource and you will find that who is cheaper varies a lot. Both companies strive to offer the best deals they can to their users. Some times you will get great deals in Accordance and sometimes at Logos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this thread has been useful because it has allowed us to get some things out into the open and to correct some inaccuracies recently disseminated on the Logos Forum. I am sure it will be useful to those who are deciding which platform they would like to use. I believe that both platforms are viable and useful tools for Bible Study. We are truly blessed to have both Accordance and Logos!


We will introduce very soon a custom upgrade to all the collections and some other bundles that will only charge you for the new modules you are acquiring. That should help the upgrades. We occasionally offer pre-pub specials. We do not have plans to introduce community pricing.

 

This is great news, Helen!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

That is not a fair comparison.You need to compare regular prices with regular prices and not temporary sales to make your point.

 

.......

 

My point is that you need to go resource by resource and you will find that who is cheaper varies a lot. Both companies strive to offer the best deals they can to their users. Some times you will get great deals in Accordance and sometimes at Logos.

Can you tell me what the price for the Anchor Bible Commentary series was when it was on sale at Logos?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5. Quite surprised by this one. I would think that if you buy some resources from a package or set, you should be able to receive some kind of credit when you upgrade. Otherwise, you are paying 2X for the same resource.

 

I can't really comment on the others, as I don't really use Logos, or Faithlife, or Verso, or ...

 

But as to #5, I have personal experience that Accordance does deduct for modules already owned. Case in point, I had purchased some resources indapendently, and a few months later I purchased the essentials collection and received a $100 credit for the modules I had purchased previously which were in the new collection I purchased.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ryan, consider yourself lucky as is not the common practice with Accordance. Just read Helen comment in this very thread. So, no, Accodance does not have dynamic pricing.

 

Another BIG difference is that Logos offers full no questions asked refund policy with 30 days for everything you buy from them. You bought something, decided is not what you wanted or had buyers remorse, just return it within 30 days and get a full refund.

Edited by davidmedina
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two factual clarifications: (1) Accordance does offer a payment plan. (2) It's not "dynamic pricing" per se, of the sort that Helen references as coming in the future, but there already is in place a three-month grace period, described in more detail here under "CREDITS." I suspect this is what Ryan is describing.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another BIG difference is that Logos offers full no questions asked refund policy with 30 days for everything you buy from them. You bought something, decided is not what you wanted or had buyers remorse, just return it within 30 days and get a full refund.

 

I think this has to do with the system that Logos uses and the fact that it is always connected to the Internet. They have the ability to control access to the resources remotely so they can add and remove resources at will. By contrast, Accordance has a simpler download system. Thus, when you download a resource from Accordance, they have no way to remove it from your devices.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, Abrams, Accordance offers a payment plan which I am benefiting right now, but there is a significant difference.

 

Accordance payment plan is very limited in scope. While Logos is more liberal working more as a revolving charge card than a payment plan. To me Logos style of payment plan has been very helpful in allowing me to get the resources I want something I am not able to do.

 

I can go right now to Logos and purchase any book and get payment plan immediately. I cannot do that with Accordance. Just a different way of doing things, not right or wrong, just different. But if Accodance offered something similar and dynamic pricing (not just in 3 months grace period) I may have more resources in Accordance than in Logos.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this has to do with the system that Logos uses and the fact that it is always connected to the Internet. They have the ability to control access to the resources remotely so they can add and remove resources at will. By contrast, Accordance has a simpler download system. Thus, when you download a resource from Accordance, they have no way to remove it from your devices.

 

Totally agree, Tony.

 

I believe it has also to do that Logos is a BIG company and that may allow them to take more risks.

 

I don't want to give the impression that Accordance is bad or wrong. Please, please, I hope I am not giving that impression with my comments. I think they have each have a different way of operating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I think this has to do with the system that Logos uses and the fact that it is always connected to the Internet. They have the ability to control access to the resources remotely so they can add and remove resources at will. By contrast, Accordance has a simpler download system. Thus, when you download a resource from Accordance, they have no way to remove it from your devices.

Maybe the challenge is if Accordance did this they would cut off older users (before Accordance initiated their download system).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

At this time, Accordance has a much lower "cost of entry". Their $49 starter package is a really good value, even though it is limited. You can still get a really good idea of what Accordance can do. For the average Christian, it may be all they need for basic Bible study and devotions. You get some texts, some dictionaries, and some other basic tools. But you get the whole engine, not a shell.

 

 

Just my .02. YMMV.

 

My point exactly. For a great many people in the pew they need a good Bible dictionary the text tied to original language and a decent Bible commentary. Logos offers nothing for the Christian who is on a budget or needs very little. Yes they offer Faithlife free... But last night for example I was in bed meditating over Luke 7:36-50, I decided for heck of it to go to faithlife in Logos and I felt really shocked. The notes are often quite verbose and insightful, I go there and find the notes and referred to notes particularly shallow. I was told by one person in Logos forum that FLSB blows IVP's NDC out of the water, and I agreed with him after last night I would say depends where you are studying. A thing I do not care about FLSB is it's constant advertising, I mean if you have spent a fortune and have all the commentaries and dictionaries links to further study is great, but if you are a person who has just FLSB it just feels like a hook to get you to buy X resource (there is nothing wrong with that they did make the basic resource and gave it to you freely, it just feels too much like the money changers in the temple to me, to others it may just feel like being pointed in the right direction for further illumination). I well realize that FLSB is a constant work in progress and may expand greatly seeing as it has no physical bounds. And while the iOS version of FLSB has resources like Original Language support if you decided you wanted it on the computer and downloaded the Logos engine, you quickly discover FLSB does not even include a Bible Translation by default (you can get the lexham added free of charge at the Logos website but currently this freebie will still require you to enter in a credit card (one pastor recently trying out FLSB on his own was very upset over this) although NO charges will be put through, this bug is being rectified as can be seen in the sister site verbum.com which requires no credit card for a zero balance purchase). And you do not have original language support in the LEB once you have it, that is only free in the mobile APP. The owner of Logos has stated he has no interest in in people not willing to pay $300 to get into his software because the technical support for those users cost him more than he would make on $50 package. Less than 2% of Logos users buy any resources beyond their initial purchased base package. That is his right to make the decision for what is right for his company and I do applaud him for making FLSB as a free resource but I greatly applaud Accordance for making an extremely affordable package that gives Christians all they might need to get started (and possible all the want) as well as for their iOS program free of charge allowing people to have on their device full powerful tools to study the word (much of FLSB functionality requires an active connection to Logos servers and cannot be saved to the device).

 

-Dan

Below I copy the two resources on that passage (I have added in the relevant redirect notes from FLSB in squared brackets)
7:36 One of the Pharisees Although Jesus often rebuked the self-righteousness of Israel’s religious leaders, they were not always antagonistic toward one another.
7:37 a sinner See 15:1 and note. [“Sinners” might designate prostitutes (perhaps 7:37, 39), but the text is ambiguous.]
7:40 Simon A reference to Simon the Leper (see Matt 26:6 and note), a Pharisee who may have been previously cured of leprosy by Jesus.
7:41 denarii The denarius was the usual daily wage for a laborer. A debt of 500 denarii was seemingly insurmountable.
[image of a denarius]
7:43 to whom he forgave more Jesus’ point here is similar to 5:32. The woman, who appeared to be in greater need of forgiveness, expresses her love and appreciation more than the Pharisee who likely thought that he needed no such forgiveness (see v. 47).
7:49 Who is this who even forgives sins See 5:21 and note. [The forgiveness of sins was a prerogative of God alone.]
7:50 Your faith has saved you See Matt 9:22 and note. [Your faith has healed you Jesus often cites a person’s faith as the impetus for healing (compare 8:13; 9:29; 15:28).]
John D. Barry et al., Faithlife Study Bible (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2012), Lk 7:36–50.
--------------------------------------------
7:36-50 The woman who was a sinner (cf. Mt. 26:6-13; Mk. 14:3-9; Jn. 12:1-8).
This story illustrates the accusation made in v 34. Jesus had been invited to the home of a Pharisee, called Simon, probably for a meal after a synagogue service. It was not uncommon for uninvited guests to be found at a banquet, and among them was a woman well known as a prostitute. Since people reclined on couches instead of sitting on chairs to eat formal meals, she was easily able to reach Jesus. She proceeded to anoint Jesus with perfume, very possibly bought with her immoral earnings, but she could not finish her task for tears. Her actions were no doubt unseemly, but she was under too great emotional stress to care what people thought. The Pharisee was disturbed by the way in which Jesus accepted this respect given by such an undesirable person in so embarrassing a manner. His feeling that Jesus might be a prophet was being contradicted by Jesus’ being seemingly unaware that the person touching him was a sinner—and therefore ‘unclean’. But Jesus knew what was happening and made his point to Simon with a parable whose message was quite clear: love is the proof that a person has received forgiveness, and the more people are forgiven, the more they will love.
There is no need to blacken Simon’s character by suggesting that his reply was haughty or indifferent (43). Nor was his treatment of his guest discourteous. He had performed the necessary duties of hospitality, but he had not gone out of his way to give Jesus a special welcome. By contrast the sinful woman had lavished her devotion upon Jesus. This proved that she had been forgiven for many sins. Jesus then underlined the fact that she was forgiven and asserted that it was her faith that had brought her salvation.
Some commentators have argued that the woman’s love for Jesus was the cause of her forgiveness rather than its result. They would interpret v 47 to mean: ‘the reason her sins are forgiven is that she loved much’ and then see v 48 as the first declaration of forgiveness to her. This view would make nonsense of the parable (41-42) which clearly teaches that love follows forgiveness, and it ignores the stress on faith in v 50. The error is due to not recognizing that ‘to love’ is the Heb. phrase for ‘to show gratitude’. We must assume that the woman had previously heard and accepted the gospel message.
Notes. 41 A denarius was roughly a farm worker’s daily wage (cf. the NIV mg.).
46 Olive oil was vastly cheaper than perfume.
A somewhat similar story is told in the other gospels, but it probably describes a different incident.
New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition, ed. D. A Carson et al., Accordance electronic ed. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1994), 992.
Edited by Dan Francis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

David,

I was referring,of course, to my own subjective impression of pricing on logos and accordance for modules that interested me.

 

Take for example, the logos price on the Anchor Yale Bible Commentary series (86 volumes) at $1969.95 vs the price on accordance which is on sale right now $999!

 

A VERY big difference!

 

And there is one very big difference. 86 volumes not 85... Logos for some reason has lost the right to publish the Matthew volume... There was some debate about it being a poor volume with not much to offer and being replaced in a few years by a newer volume, but I have found the Anchor Matthew volume quite insightful.

 

-Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

And there is one very big difference. 86 volumes not 85... Logos for some reason has lost the right to publish the Matthew volume... There was some debate about it being a poor volume with not much to offer and being replaced in a few years by a newer volume, but I have found the Anchor Matthew volume quite insightful.

 

-Dan

Unfortunately, Acccordance has also lost the right to publish this volume for those who purchased after May 14! http://www.accordancebible.com/store/details/?pid=Anchor-NT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:( sorry to hear that...

* Due to a licensing agreement issue, the Matthew volume has been removed from the Anchor-NT module release (May 14, 2014). This volume will again become available once a settlement on electronic rights has been reached. Users who purchased Anchor-NT prior to this date can rightfully retain their copy of the Matthew volume. Other users will receive the Matthew volume with a free future update.

 

We have been told Logos is not trying to get it back, so there is a bit of difference.

 

-Dan

Edited by Dan Francis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding #2, "Lexicons do not always find the text you are looking for."



I think this means that when you click on a word, it does not bring you to the correct lexical entry. I have found this to be true for HMT-W4. Let me explain, and please forgive the length taken up by the examples.



Even though I bought Accordance for its grammatical and syntactical search capabilities, I thought an added benefit would be rapid reading of the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek on a tablet. However, one of the first things I noticed was the amount of lexical errors in the instant details window in HMT-W4, both in the Windows desktop version, and later in the iOS pop up window. Some of these errors occur in one lexicon but not in another. In the examples below, I compare BDB and CDCH.



Most of the errors have to do with homonyms, listed in the lexicons as number I, II, III, etc. For example, ענהI answer, reply to . . . ; ענהIIbe afflicted, humbled; . . . ענהIII sing . . .; and ענהIV be occupied, be busy . . . . . In most cases, the lexical entry is from the wrong homonym. While the gloss with the parsing information is better at listing the correct homonym, sometimes it also is incorrect. Another type of error is presenting the wrong part of speech, e.g., a verb entry for a noun.



At first I thought these errors were localized to a few difficult Hebrew passages, but they seem to be everywhere, at least in the Prophets and Writings. I will give some examples from Isaiah 14 and 15:1, which I read last night. There are nine lexical errors in Isa 14, and the same one twice in Isa 15:1.



14:1 נִלְוָ֤ה listed correctly in parsing information as לוהI join


- in BDB, lexical entry appears correctly as לוהI join


- in CDCH, lexical entry appears incorrectly as its לוהI borrow


- so, there is an error in CDCH for this entry; in it, לוהII is join (in the Niphal)



14:6 אַף֙ listed correctly in parsing information as אףII nose, anger


- in BDB, lexical entry appears incorrectly as אף כי furthermore, . . .


- in CDCH, lexical entry appears incorrectly as אףI also, and, moreover . . .


- so, BDB and CDCH have the wrong lexical entry for אף here



14:10 נִמְשָֽׁלְתָּ listed correctly in parsing information as משׁלI be like


- in BDB, lexical entry appears incorrectly as I. מָשָׁל n.pr.loc. v. מִשְׁאָל


- in CDCH, lexical entry appears incorrectly as its משׁלI rule, dominate, . . .


- so, BDB and CDCH have the wrong lexical entry for נִמְשָֽׁלְתָּ here



14:11 נְבָלֶ֑יךָ correctly listed in parsing as נבלII harp


- in BDB, lexical entry incorrectly I. נבל (with no definition)


- in CDCH, lexical entry incorrectly נבלI wither, fade


- so, BDB and CDCH have the wrong lexical entry for נְבָלֶ֑יךָ here



14:12 חוֹלֵ֖שׁ incorrectly listed in parsing as חלשׁII make prostrate


- in BDB, there is only one entry for חלשׁ , CDCH and HAL have I and II


- in CDCH, lexical entry incorrectly חלשׁII be prostrate; should be חלשׁI inflict defeat upon


- so, BDB and CDCH have the wrong lexical entry for חוֹלֵ֖ש here



There are also problems with:



14:19 כְּפֶ֥גֶר - correct in parsing and BDB as פגר corpse, incorrect in CDCH פגרI be exhausted


14:20 זֶ֥רַע - correct in parsing and BDB as זרע seed, incorrect in CDCH זרע sow, gives verb entry for a noun


14:25 וְסֻ֨בֳּל֔וֹ - correct in parsing as סבל burden, incorrect in BDB and CDCH as סבל bear, gives verb entry for a noun


14:29 מִשֹּׁ֤רֶשׁ - correct in parsing and BDB as שׁרשׁ root, incorrect in CDCH as שׁרשׁ uproot, gives verb entry for noun


15:1 נִדְמָ֔ה - correct in parsing as דמהIII be ruined, cut off, incorrect in BDB and CDCH as דמהI be like



All of the above words have correct lexical entries in Logos for HAL, Holladay's Concise HAL, BDB, and Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament (with the exception of 14:12 חוֹלֵ֖ש , Wörterbuch prefers prostrate like BDB, and BDB's entry for 15:1 נִדְמָ֔ה , entering דמהI for II).



So one of my obvious concerns is how incorrect lexical entries in the instant details and pop up windows detract from rapid reading Of course, if you triple click to a lexicon in the desktop or amplify to the root or lemma in the ipad, you can find the correct entry, but a major benefit of the program is the instant details window/pop up, which should be correct.



Another major concern is that incorrect tags in the parsing information might affect grammatical and syntax searches. Like Dr. Holmstedt said, for serious work you have to read through results yourself, but I assumed there would be a higher degree of accuracy than I am finding to begin with.



I thought about reporting these errors, but they are so numerous I even stopped highlighting them.



On a related note, I have found only one lexical entry error in the NT. Don't ask me where, but I did highlight it. Maybe next time around I'll report it.




Michel Gilbert


Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The owner of Logos has stated he has no interest in in people not willing to pay $300 to get into his software because the technical support for those users cost him more than he would make on $50 package. Less than 2% of Logos users buy any resources beyond their initial purchased base package.

 

Logos' business model is quite a bit different in that they have to maintain servers to keep all the information synced and to provide data for all of the web and mobile services. That costs money, thus they charge a higher "admission price". Ironically, the 2% who pay for the product have to support these resources for the 98% that don't.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

MIchael,

Sorry, I didn't read your message carefully enough. I see what you mean.

Edited by Gordon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gordon, please re-read my post:



"One of the first things I noticed was the amount of lexical errors in the instant details window in HMT-W4, both in the Windows desktop version, and later in the iOS pop up window." I am referring to the pop up window in the ipad, and <Ctrl> - hover/click in the desktop version, which bring up my preferred lexicon. Those entries are often in error.



Also, "If you triple click to a lexicon in the desktop or amplify to the root or lemma in the ipad, you can find the correct entry, but a major benefit of the program is the instant details window/pop up, which should be correct." I know how to find the correct entry. But my concern is with lexical entries from my preferred lexicon in the instant details and pop up windows.



Michel



Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Regarding #2, "Lexicons do not always find the text you are looking for."

I think this means that when you click on a word, it does not bring you to the correct lexical entry. I have found this to be true for HMT-W4. Let me explain, and please forgive the length taken up by the examples.

Even though I bought Accordance for its grammatical and syntactical search capabilities, I thought an added benefit would be rapid reading of the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek on a tablet. However, one of the first things I noticed was the amount of lexical errors in the instant details window in HMT-W4, both in the Windows desktop version, and later in the iOS pop up window. Some of these errors occur in one lexicon but not in another. In the examples below, I compare BDB and CDCH.

Most of the errors have to do with homonyms, listed in the lexicons as number I, II, III, etc. For example, ענהI answer, reply to . . . ; ענהIIbe afflicted, humbled; . . . ענהIII sing . . .; and ענהIV be occupied, be busy . . . . . In most cases, the lexical entry is from the wrong homonym. While the gloss with the parsing information is better at listing the correct homonym, sometimes it also is incorrect. Another type of error is presenting the wrong part of speech, e.g., a verb entry for a noun.

At first I thought these errors were localized to a few difficult Hebrew passages, but they seem to be everywhere, at least in the Prophets and Writings. I will give some examples from Isaiah 14 and 15:1, which I read last night. There are nine lexical errors in Isa 14, and the same one twice in Isa 15:1.

14:1 נִלְוָ֤ה listed correctly in parsing information as לוהI join

- in BDB, lexical entry appears correctly as לוהI join

- in CDCH, lexical entry appears incorrectly as its לוהI borrow

- so, there is an error in CDCH for this entry; in it, לוהII is join (in the Niphal)

14:6 אַף֙ listed correctly in parsing information as אףII nose, anger

- in BDB, lexical entry appears incorrectly as אף כי furthermore, . . .

- in CDCH, lexical entry appears incorrectly as אףI also, and, moreover . . .

- so, BDB and CDCH have the wrong lexical entry for אף here

14:10 נִמְשָֽׁלְתָּ listed correctly in parsing information as משׁלI be like

- in BDB, lexical entry appears incorrectly as I. מָשָׁל n.pr.loc. v. מִשְׁאָל

- in CDCH, lexical entry appears incorrectly as its משׁלI rule, dominate, . . .

- so, BDB and CDCH have the wrong lexical entry for נִמְשָֽׁלְתָּ here

14:11 נְבָלֶ֑יךָ correctly listed in parsing as נבלII harp

- in BDB, lexical entry incorrectly I. נבל (with no definition)

- in CDCH, lexical entry incorrectly נבלI wither, fade

- so, BDB and CDCH have the wrong lexical entry for נְבָלֶ֑יךָ here

14:12 חוֹלֵ֖שׁ incorrectly listed in parsing as חלשׁII make prostrate

- in BDB, there is only one entry for חלשׁ , CDCH and HAL have I and II

- in CDCH, lexical entry incorrectly חלשׁII be prostrate; should be חלשׁI inflict defeat upon

- so, BDB and CDCH have the wrong lexical entry for חוֹלֵ֖ש here

There are also problems with:

14:19 כְּפֶ֥גֶר - correct in parsing and BDB as פגר corpse, incorrect in CDCH פגרI be exhausted

14:20 זֶ֥רַע - correct in parsing and BDB as זרע seed, incorrect in CDCH זרע sow, gives verb entry for a noun

14:25 וְסֻ֨בֳּל֔וֹ - correct in parsing as סבל burden, incorrect in BDB and CDCH as סבל bear, gives verb entry for a noun

14:29 מִשֹּׁ֤רֶשׁ - correct in parsing and BDB as שׁרשׁ root, incorrect in CDCH as שׁרשׁ uproot, gives verb entry for noun

15:1 נִדְמָ֔ה - correct in parsing as דמהIII be ruined, cut off, incorrect in BDB and CDCH as דמהI be like

All of the above words have correct lexical entries in Logos for HAL, Holladay's Concise HAL, BDB, and Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament (with the exception of 14:12 חוֹלֵ֖ש , Wörterbuch prefers prostrate like BDB, and BDB's entry for 15:1 נִדְמָ֔ה , entering דמהI for II).

So one of my obvious concerns is how incorrect lexical entries in the instant details and pop up windows detract from rapid reading Of course, if you triple click to a lexicon in the desktop or amplify to the root or lemma in the ipad, you can find the correct entry, but a major benefit of the program is the instant details window/pop up, which should be correct.

Another major concern is that incorrect tags in the parsing information might affect grammatical and syntax searches. Like Dr. Holmstedt said, for serious work you have to read through results yourself, but I assumed there would be a higher degree of accuracy than I am finding to begin with.

I thought about reporting these errors, but they are so numerous I even stopped highlighting them.

On a related note, I have found only one lexical entry error in the NT. Don't ask me where, but I did highlight it. Maybe next time around I'll report it.

Michel Gilbert

 

 

This really needs to be split off this topic to one under 'bug swatters' or something. I would not have read it since I stopped following this thread, but glanced when I saw Hebrew.

 

The issue is related to the ability to determine the homograph number when looking up a word. I think the underlying assumption here is that the user can navigate to the appropriate homograph on their own, but I agree it would be much quicker if it did this automatically.

 

As you noted, in none but one case was the morphology tagging incorrect since the tagging always distinguishes between the homographs. However, we do not maintain the tagging, the Groves Institute does. You can report errors to them.

 

This does not happen in Greek since there are very few homographs. But something similar will happen with words which differ only by accent. Accordance by default ignores accents and breathing marks when looking up words; the user would have to navigate to the appropriate entry on their own.

 

I hope this helps to explain things.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rick,



My post was a direct response to #2 of the original post, and an indirect response to some denials that #2 is true in any way. You may copy it to another thread if you wish.



I think that your underlying assumption refers to navigating to a lexicon in the desktop, not to an instant details or pop up window. Surely, the underlying assumption in consulting a lexicon is that one wants the correct entry, and I think the pop up in ipad and the <Ctrl> - click pop up in the desktop should flash the correct entry. In fact, a very high percentage of the entries are correct in these instant windows, most likely in the high 90s. Isn't navigating to the correct word/homograph as basic as navigating to a word without homographs?



Moreover, in the context of the original post, Logos almost always, in all of its Hebrew lexicons, goes to the correct homograph.



I would like you to be more clear on whether you intend to address this. Perhaps there are others beside me who would be willing to highlight the errors, and we could report them that way. After all, quick access to lexical entries is one of the reasons biblical software exists.



Michel



  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...