Jump to content

instant details definitions


Kristin
 Share

Recommended Posts

I apologize if this question is super basic but I can't figure it out. If I click on a Hebrew word it brings up HALOT, but if I hover over it it shows the definition in Instant Details, which is not coming from HALOT. That is fine, but can someone explain where the Instant Details definitions are coming from?

 

Likewise, are they just a quick ref or can I use it alongside other actual dictionaries like HALOT or BDAG? (I mean for my notes, not citing it in papers...)

 

Thanks,

Kristin

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Press "CMD". (if it is set to HALOT)

 

And there is a feature request with a few interests to have this as default. So to press "CMD" is not necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi @Fabian,

Thanks, and that is true that if I press CMD I get HALOT, but where is that definition coming from when I "don't" press command?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just read your question again and I saw I haven't answered your question. 

 

The one on top is hard coded from the text.

The one below is from 945863159_Bildschirmfoto2021-08-17um20_31_52.thumb.png.7a9653a025f62f500215bec1923e5527.png

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Kristin said:

Likewise, are they just a quick ref or can I use it alongside other actual dictionaries like HALOT or BDAG? (I mean for my notes, not citing it in papers...)

You can use it in papers too. You have "page numbers". Or do I not understand what you want? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi @Fabian,

Thanks for the screenshot. I noticed your under "compare" and not "instant details, which might have been why I couldn't find texts." If I am understanding correctly, when you said it is "hard coded" in the text, I think you mean that the instant details are coming from whatever text I am hovering over. For example, if I hover over a word in the ESV, the instant detail definition is actually coming from the ESV itself. Is that correct? Thus, if I were to site it in a paper I would have the citation listed as "ESV definition"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello @Kristin,

 

If you hover over ESV, then the Strongs tagging is from ESV (So yes), but the rest is hard coded in a program file of Accordance. Accordance link them together for the Instant Details.  

 

I was talking about the HALOT. The grammatical definitions is not from the ESV, they are from other peoples. You see it in the about this text. 

126589477_Bildschirmfoto2021-08-17um22_43_13.png.fe456fcb3beaba396f204718a810c3e4.png

 

 

Fabian

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are referring to the gloss following the key number in the instant details, I find that changing the Keyed Text choice, under the Source Text section of the Compare Text preference will change the English text providing the gloss. 

 

Have fun experimenting,

 

—Joseph

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi @Solly and @Fabian,

Thank you both for your help, and I think I understand now. Just to make sure, I am going to attach a screenshot to make sure I understand. In the screenshot, you can ignore the highlighted word, as this concerns the definition of (תֹ֨הוּ֙). This all started since the Instant Details listed "chaos" so I thought "interesting" and wanted to read more, but then when I opened HALOT it was giving something more like "empty," and frankly, "empty" is not the same as "chaos."

 

So I think, if I am understanding you both correct, that the "chaos" definition is coming from the Hebrew Bible itself (as shown in the screenshot Fabian provided above). Thus, if I were to cite this in a paper I would site it as  Hebrew Masoretic Text with the publish information in Fabian's screenshot.

Do I understand this all correctly now?

 

Thanks,
Kristin
 

tohu.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would not cite the gloss given in your screen sample in an academic paper until the origin of the gloss is exactly determined. I have only found what the choices among the source texts do. I also know that the HMT-W4/BHS-T pair give glosses that are unlike the MT-ETCBC glosses. What I don't know is how the glosses for these texts were provided. Are they part of the digital text data provided by the publisher? Does the Accordance software provide something the text publisher does not provide by including an analysis of a lexeme to provide an Accordance generated gloss that was added to the publisher data when the text module was developed? I would want to know the origin of the glosses so that proper citation could be provided. 

 

Perhaps one of the developers will see this thread and provide the information about the glosses in the texts mentioned above.

 

—Joseph the Curious

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have the definitive answer from Helen Brown, who did the initial work on our Hebrew Glosses for the HMT-W4/BHS-T pair. It looks like we started with work from GRAMCORD by Dale Wheeler, but Helen did most of the work based on HALOT and BDB.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Mark Allison said:

I have the definitive answer from Helen Brown, who did the initial work on our Hebrew Glosses for the HMT-W4/BHS-T pair. It looks like we started with work from GRAMCORD by Dale Wheeler, but Helen did most of the work based on HALOT and BDB.

Yes, she mentioned that in an old webinar. But as I know she mentioned also some should be updated, if I remember correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fabian said:

Yes, she mentioned that in an old webinar. But as I know she mentioned also some should be updated, if I remember correct.

 

If anyone finds any gloss errors, they can contact us at corrections@accordancebible.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mark Allison said:

I have the definitive answer from Helen Brown, who did the initial work on our Hebrew Glosses for the HMT-W4/BHS-T pair. It looks like we started with work from GRAMCORD by Dale Wheeler, but Helen did most of the work based on HALOT and BDB.

Hi Mark,

Thank you very much for the clarification. :) If you do not mind, I actually have four (I hope that is ok...) follow up questions in light of what you wrote:


1) If I am understanding correctly, there is really no way to cite anything in the Instant Details, as the source of the information is potentially coming from a variety of places. Is this correct?


2) I really like the Instant Details definition since "chaos" is mentioned, which is an obvious definition which HALOT downplays for some reason. I have thus been citing other sources which do speak of it but are not technically dictionaries, such as JPS and whatever.  Given what you wrote I just opened my BDB and found the "chaos," so the Instant Details might be coming from there. I know that if someone says "HALOT says..." that has a lot of authority. Would you say if I quote either HALOT or BDB it has the same authority?

3) What would you say is the best way to switch between dictionaries? When I click on a Hebrew word it opens HALOT, and I frankly often forget to check other dictionaries. But with what you wrote I just clicked the little arrow thing and opened it. Is that the best way, or is it possible to set it that when I click on a Hebrew word that HALOT and BDB both open as two separate tabs?

4) This is a really ignorant question, but what is GRAMCORD or Dale Wheeler? I am probably the only one on the thread who is lost with this, but that does not sound familiar.

Thank you for your help. :)
Kristin

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) I wouldn't cite the Instant Details, since you can get the same info from sources like HALOT or BDB and others, which will be much easier to cite.
2) HALOT is the standard, but BDB is still certainly recognized as authoritative. You might find this interesting: https://niedergall.com/bdb-vs-halot/
3) I'd create a custom group of my favorite lexicons, then select it in Live Click in the "Lexicons" option. Clicking on a word will show you all the lexicons. Hint: In your Accordance Preferences under Reading/Research, select "Show results in full text" so you won't be limited to a short excerpt.
4) You don't know about Gramcord because you're not old like some of us, lol. There's some interesting history here: https://accordancebible.com/25-reasons-were-still-going-strong-business-strategies/. Check out #17 for info on Gramcord.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you, @Mark Allison! I created the "Favorite Lexicons" like you mentioned and that works great. :) Thank you also for the links. I will be sure to take a look at them.

Take care,
Kristin

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Mark Allison said:

I have the definitive answer from Helen Brown, who did the initial work on our Hebrew Glosses for the HMT-W4/BHS-T pair. It looks like we started with work from GRAMCORD by Dale Wheeler, but Helen did most of the work based on HALOT and BDB.

 

Over the years I’ve read BDB, Holladay, HALOT, CDCH, and DCH basically cover to cover, so when I compared the glosses in Instant Details I chose Hebrew words that I knew/thought were/would be glossed differently (including תהו). I concluded that the vast majority of glosses in HMT-W4 come from BDB, and almost all of the glosses in ETCBC come from HALOT.

Helen could correct me if I’m wrong. A lot of the glosses in BDB and HALOT are the same. So she could have been following HALOT most of the time, but followed BDB for the majority of the words I looked up.

Michel

  • Like 2
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...