Somewhat Confused

[rcdeacon]

As I am studying through James in chapter 1 verse 6 two words are there in the CSB 17S. The words are "driven" and "tossed". Hovering over "driven" there is NO word present in the interlinear. Hovering over "tossed" there is. Not to incite problems here, but I wanted to find out the original words and their meanings so I opted to check out the competitor and found that they have listed for the word "driven" Strong's 416. I am also using the CSB in the competitor. Why would one program have it and not Accordance? This is NOT the first time this has happened!

 

Bob

[ukfraser]

Interesting, i found both words tagged in nrsvs but 'driven' isnt in the esvs either.

[Fabian]

It seems the competitor has tagged both words which is needed to express the one Greek word in English.

 

Accordance could do here tag both. As it is on other places with the same dark color. But it would in my opinion by far better to change to the G/K tagging and then go to the Enhanced G/K. With the dark blue and the light blue color.

 

In my opinion Accordance should add so many tagged Bible as they can. And then change all to the newer better systems. 

Edited May 4, 2022 by Fabian

[ukfraser]

A bit off topic but who tags the text?

 

I had assumed accordance received tagged texts from the publisher or third party and didnt do the tagging themselves. This was because some texts like jb and tev are not tagged and we have both strongs, g/k and enhanced g/k tagging rather than a single standard tagging on all texts and there are inconsistencies in the way the text is tagged, even with the same system as indicated by our first two messages. 
 

be nice to have a bit more info on this. 

[R. Mansfield]

To answer the question immediately above, most of the time, for publisher-owned texts, we get tagging info from the publisher. That's not always the case such as the ESV which we manually tagged years ago when there was no such information available (you can blame yours truly for any errors in Romans for 1 Corinthians). None of these tagging schemes, whether from us for from the publisher, are inerrant of course. If you think we should take a second look at specific tagging on words, or lack thereof, just send in a correction report. 

[Kristin]

I love tagging and greatly appreciate that Accordance went through the work to tag the texts they did.

 

Concerning tagging both words, I am strongly against tagging both words as it leads to false results. If I look for the instances of some key and it says there are 20 hits, but there are actually only 18 since the same Greek word has been tagged twice, it is a commotion.

 

The way the NIV does it with the light and dark highlighting is great, as it does not produce false hits.

[Fabian]

34 minutes ago, Kristin said:

The way the NIV does it with the light and dark highlighting is great, as it does not produce false hits.

I see this too, thats why I have emphasized it in my post.

 

36 minutes ago, Kristin said:

I love tagging and greatly appreciate that Accordance went through the work to tag the texts they did.

 

I agree. I simply prefer the Enhanced G/K more than the Strong's.

[Fabian]

On 5/4/2022 at 4:50 PM, R. Mansfield said:

ESV which we manually tagged years ago

Thats great, but can Accordance now tag the ESV as Enhanced G/K please?

[R. Mansfield]

5 minutes ago, Fabian said:

Thats great, but can Accordance now tag the ESV as Enhanced G/K please?

 

Probably not. The enhanced G/K for the NIV was worked out by Kohlenberger himself. It's not that we don't have folks with knowledge to do something like this, but it would be a very long process and take away from other projects. And it's doubtful that we could recoup the cost of person-hours anytime soon, even if we had the extra folks to do it. 

[Fabian]

14 hours ago, R. Mansfield said:

 

Probably not. The enhanced G/K for the NIV was worked out by Kohlenberger himself. It's not that we don't have folks with knowledge to do something like this, but it would be a very long process and take away from other projects. And it's doubtful that we could recoup the cost of person-hours anytime soon, even if we had the extra folks to do it. 

 

Shortly after I came to Accordance. No, shortly after I purchased Accordance I found out how important tagged text for this application is. Also the new [TEXT] command etc. is based on it. Thats why I have searched and still search for tagged texts to add to Accordance. You can't imagine how many time (I don't want to count them in hours, days, weeks, months, years) I have spent for it. I'm really exited Mark is adding now more and more of the texts I have found. But I see also the tagging is very lacking on some texts. I would suggest to change the Strong's to G/K in all texts via a script and add the tags to words which are missing in the Strong's system. Also extend the tagging to word which are now not in the G/K system. For example the LXX and other texts like the patristic fathers. I would go in contact with the publisher of the G/K tagging if they are interested in doing so. They can then sell the Strongest Strong's book as an extended version with the LXX words included etc. And you get the data for tagging the texts. May they give money to do so. 

 

Yes it doesn't must be the Enhanced G/K. This is very time consuming. I agree with that. It's only a wish. But a correct fully G/K is in (all) texts is no discussion. In may opinion OakTree has to search for a person who is eager to tag texts. The databases are something company L is had invested in the past and now can profit. Bibles are also databases. Nearly every website has a rudimentary Strong's feature. If you want to sell your application, you have to have a working system far beyond that. The [TEXT] command is good. It is something I requested years ago to combine the data of different texts. But now the database has to be improved. If Accordance has very good tagged Bibles it is then also much better if other databases are added, like semantics etc. 

 

As you know this is a summary of what I have wrote over the last decade in several threads and emails. That said. Accordance NEEDS it. It is NOT an option if Accordance should invest in this case more or let it be. It is a core feature for the fully functionality of Accordance. It has to invest MORE. This had to be done a decade ago.

 

I also made some thoughts years ago how to build a script to tag other texts from a good existing one. But I explain this later. 

 

Fabian

[ukfraser]

4 hours ago, Fabian said:

No, shortly after I purchased Accordance I found out how important tagged text ... is.

Seconded!

i also try to buy texts only if they have been tagged now. I had to buy tev because its used in our church but have resisted the njb despite growing up with the jb because its neither tagged and doesnt have the brilliant study notes. 
 

(plus i would welcome a webinar on the behind the scenes look at tagging as highlighted by the very first post in this thread. )

Edited May 7, 2022 by ukfraser

[rcdeacon]

I would certainly enjoy a webinar on that process also!