Jump to content

Opentext


Fabian
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hey Fabian,

 

  I saw this and your post about Cascadia.

 

  My initial reaction is that after we get Andersen Forbes what additional value is there in other syntax databases ? Not because I think there is none, but rather to ask exactly that : what can one do with Cascadia and OpenText that we cannot do with Holmstedt, ETCBC or AF ? I think it would be worthwhile to seriously consider what new features and data these modules would bring to Accordance users. If for example their syntactic models differ significantly from H, E and AF then that might be useful. If the ancillary information they provide is different then that also might be useful. I am actually looking into this question in respect of H and E right now, or rather preparing to. Clearly handling of grammatical objects is different and that can be helpful.

 

  I had a quick look and I suspect Cascadia may be more different from H and E which we have now than OpenText would be but someone more qualified (which would be pretty much anyone with first year linguistics :) ) would have to look.

 

  I'm not saying these should not be added, rather only asking what they might give us for the effort involved, which we do not already have. Do you know what the differences are ?

 

Thx

D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously, cascadia and opentext include the NT also.

 

I use both in Logos. I would love to have it in accordance for my Greek NT studies. I would not use them for Hebrew OT Bible. In fact, I always prefer AF in Logos for OT. So with Holmstedt and ETCBC already in accordance, I would find little use for cascadia and opentext for Hebrew OT. Just Greek NT.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a good point - for Greek we have only the Holmstedt based syntax.

 

Thx

D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously, cascadia and opentext include the NT also.

 

I use both in Logos. I would love to have it in accordance for my Greek NT studies. I would not use them for Hebrew OT Bible. In fact, I always prefer AF in Logos for OT. So with Holmstedt and ETCBC already in accordance, I would find little use for cascadia and opentext for Hebrew OT. Just Greek NT.

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

Obviously, cascadia and opentext include the NT also.

 

I would find little use for cascadia and opentext for Hebrew OT. 

Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought that Cascadia for OT is available only for OT Greek (LXX/Aprocrypha) and Opentext is available only for NT Greek? 

 

I would like to see Cascadia (OT Greek and NT) and Opentext in Accordance, please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...