Jump to content

BHS-T v MT-ETCBC-(A) differences?


drmatt.thomas
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi all,

 

I'm currently teaching a tools-based Hebrew course using Accordance. Some of my students purchased their packages after July 1, 2021, so they have the newer MT-ETCBC-A rather than the BHS-T. A student contacted me today regarding some discrepancies between my answer keys (made using my BHS-T) and what they're seeing in their new Accordance package with the MT-ETCBC-A. It appears that the morphological tagging is treating some things differently, and--if nothing else--I figured there might be others who would benefit from knowing about the differences.

 

Things I've noticed so far:

  • Numbers - BHS-T identifies them as adjectives; MT-ETCBC-A identifies them as nouns
  • Gentilics (Levite, Ephraimite, etc.) - BHS-T: nouns; MT-ETCBC-A: adjectives
  • את - Although the MT-ETCBC-A does identify it as "<object marker>" when it is the direct object marker, it still identifies it as a preposition, which seems potentially confusing
  • waw consecutive perfects - BHS-T: perf . . . consec; MT-ETCBC-A: not sure if this is marked
  •      I searched for wcps in BHS-T, then checked the MT-ETCBC-A for the same words. No mention of 'consec' or anything similar. Some have 'copulative', but inconsistently.

 

I don't know if there's a summary of the differences, but that would be greatly helpful.

 

-Matt

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should add that I recognize that some of these cases are arguable either way on a grammatical level, but what I'm mainly concerned about is having consistency with my students. Some of them have the BHS-T, while others have the new MT-ETCBC-A.

 

-Matt

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Matt,

 

I think you have just uncovered the tip off the iceberg in terms of the differences. I have a colleague who has identified other parsing oddities besides the ones you have.  I have not been able to search for jussives, apocopated forms, etc. I understand that the ETCBC is a syntactical mark-up, but I can find no documentation which explains which grammatical forms it parses for. I appreciate the extra levels it can offer. But right now, I am having difficulty with it on the morphological/grammatical level.  Other than financial reasons, I do not understand why BHS-T is not included in Accordance Collections as well. I think at the very least we should be provided with documentation which identifies the differences between the basic parsing protocols between ETCBC and BHS-T

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree it would be helpful to have a comprehensive list of the differences in morphological tagging. I will begin compiling that list.

 

*Feel free to message me your observations.

Edited by Jordan S
  • Like 5
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...