Syntax-tagged texts vs critical-marked texts

[A. Smith]

What is the logic for the standard critical texts (those with the apparatus and callers in the text (NA-28 (Sigla) and BHS) are NOT tagged with syntax markers while those texts without the apparatus callers are? I can't imagine a situation where someone would need to do syntax searches of these texts and not also need the critical apparatus and callers. Why should we use two different texts, one of which is academically deficient, to accomplish the single task of fully utilizing accordance' search features? To be honest, the unmarked texts are completely unnecessary for me (and surely others doing the same kind of work I do) except for this silly division between which texts are tagged with what database. 

[Jordan S]

Historically, the reason for two separate texts was programming related. Proper search alignment was apparently too difficult to achieve with a text that contained both the sigla and the syntax tagging. I don’t remember if this was due to the complexities of the construct palette, drilling into depths of the phrase structure, or just basic searches in the text. Either way, it’s a technical problem that hasn’t been solved.

[Robert Holmstedt]

It is because the sigla texts and the morph-tagged texts do not always align. One had to be chosen, and not only were the sigla texts added to the Accordance library after the syntax tagging projects began (if I remember correctly), they were also more strictly licensed (e.g., we couldn't suggest changes to the Stuttgart text, but we could suggest changes to the Westminster text). 

 

Edited December 7, 2022 by Robert Holmstedt
typo

[A. Smith]

Good reasons. I don’t like it. But it makes sense! Thanks both of you!!