Modules with Tagging Issues

[Dr. Nathan Parker]

Seeing this forum post:

 

And reading comments from other forum members on modules with tagging issues or other issues caused me to think it would be beneficial if we could collect all of that feedback into a single forum thread now that I’m starting to have communications with our module developers.

 

If there are any previous threads you’ve mentioned tagging issues or other issues with modules, feel free to link them to this thread. Feel free to post other issues here as well. I’ll collect all of this and get it directly into the hands of our module developers.

 

Thanks!

[John Fidel]

Nathan,

As you know there are at least 3 tag numbering systems: Strong's, NASB Strong's and G/K. These need to be able to be correlated to be useful in reports such as word study or a live click search. 

 

The main issues with NASB Strong's are the numbers that also have a letter after them that do not tie to the regular Strong's numbering.

 

The G/K numbers just do not always tie out correctly. By using the NIV as your main text and running word search reports on the Greek NT, then opening NASB and ESV you can quickly find out the numerous words that are not correlating.

 

Unfortunately this is not a matter of a few words so while I can show a few and have in the forums already, it is a more pervasive issue.

 

[Dr. Nathan Parker]

Thanks for the info! I’ll chat with our developers about this.

[Accordance Enthusiast]

Targums Tagged errors:

Good recourse, but occasionally the parsing of the Aramaic words is clearly wrong.

 

E.g. in Gen. 6:4 the unambiguous plural form “עלין” is erroneously parsed as a “peal participle masculine singular”. The same mistake also occurs in Num. 27:21, Num. 34:2, Due. 4:5.

 

Also in Gen. 23:10 the Aramaic verb “עלי” is correctly parsed as a “Peal participle masculine plural construct,” but in Gen. 23:18 the same verb in the same context is parsed as a “singular” participle.

 

This is what I found with one verbal root, “עלל”. How many similar mistakes will exist when parsing other verbal roots? Such mistakes in parsing makes grammatical searches inaccurate.

 

This is so poor I think the whole database will have re-checked for mistakes in parsing.

 

 

If I found so many errors with one verbal root, how many thousands of errors will there be in the whole module?

 

You should really have the whole module re-checked, otherwise search results are guaranteed to be wrong.

Edited January 9, 2023 by Anonymous

[Dr. Nathan Parker]

Thanks for the feedback on this as well!

[Accordance Enthusiast]

Here's another example of incomplete tagging in Mishnah Kaufman.

 

There's no gloss for this word:

\

 

In this case the grammatical details are at least correct.

[Accordance Enthusiast]

In the Targums Tagged module the Aramaic particle "לית" ‘Leit’ is always parsed as a particle (not a verb), even when suffixed.

 

However, in the Targum Neofiti it is parsed as a verb when a suffix is attached.

 

This (parsing לית as a verb) is a mistake or inconsistence that needs to be standardized. Otherwise the cross textual searching will be inaccurate.

 

[Accordance Enthusiast]

Hi @Nathan Parker, could you please pin this thread - I had trouble finding it today. 

 

Thanks.

[Accordance Enthusiast]

Maybe this should also be moved to Tech support where we report the other bugs?

[Dr. Nathan Parker]

Done and done!

[Accordance Enthusiast]

Another major mistake in Mishnah tagging.

I don't know how anyone could think you could build with porridge. It should say "unhewn stone"

I repeat my request that the whole module should be re-checked for obvious errors in the tagging. 

[Schulschlus]

The tagging in the Lutherbibel 1545 https://www.accordancebible.com/product/lutherbibel-1545-mit-strongs-nummern/ is also very inconsistent, and sadly the only German translation so far that includes tagging in the Old Testament.

[Accordance Enthusiast]

Another problem in the Mishnah. Should say Qal not Hifil. The 'He' at the beginning is an interrogative particle.

 

[Dr. Nathan Parker]

Moved this to Biblical Languages and ensured it was pinned so that it doesn’t get lost under Tech Support.

[miketisdell]

When I see these kinds of things, I usually use the report feature in Accordance rather than posting this kinds of issues to the forum. Shouldn't these kinds of issues be handled in this way? 

[Mark Allison]

50 minutes ago, miketisdell said:

When I see these kinds of things, I usually use the report feature in Accordance rather than posting this kinds of issues to the forum. Shouldn't these kinds of issues be handled in this way? 

Yes, that's how they should be handled. Whoever is now in charge of dealing with error correction reports will then have documentation for every error correction report received, and can fix them all at once for any given Text, or pass them along to experts in the case of some of Accordance's original language texts. 

Posting error correction reports in the forums bypasses the standard reporting procedure, which means it could easily be overlooked. 

[Mark Allison]

On 1/9/2023 at 5:58 PM, Accordance Enthusiast said:

Targums Tagged errors:

Good recourse, but occasionally the parsing of the Aramaic words is clearly wrong.

 

E.g. in Gen. 6:4 the unambiguous plural form “עלין” is erroneously parsed as a “peal participle masculine singular”. The same mistake also occurs in Num. 27:21, Num. 34:2, Due. 4:5.

 

Also in Gen. 23:10 the Aramaic verb “עלי” is correctly parsed as a “Peal participle masculine plural construct,” but in Gen. 23:18 the same verb in the same context is parsed as a “singular” participle.

 

This is what I found with one verbal root, “עלל”. How many similar mistakes will exist when parsing other verbal roots? Such mistakes in parsing makes grammatical searches inaccurate.

 

This is so poor I think the whole database will have re-checked for mistakes in parsing.

 

 

If I found so many errors with one verbal root, how many thousands of errors will there be in the whole module?

 

You should really have the whole module re-checked, otherwise search results are guaranteed to be wrong.

Perhaps @Leeor Gottlieb could weigh in on this? 

[Dr. Nathan Parker]

Yes, please continue to use "Report Corrections" for these. We were attempting to consolidate a few forum threads that reported some issues early on, but now we're re-directing people to using "Report Corrections" (which has been the original policy). I can lock this thread if need be so people don't add to it. 

[Accordance Enthusiast]

On 6/20/2023 at 2:36 AM, Mark Allison said:

Yes, that's how they should be handled. Whoever is now in charge of dealing with error correction reports will then have documentation for every error correction report received, and can fix them all at once for any given Text, or pass them along to experts in the case of some of Accordance's original language texts. 

Posting error correction reports in the forums bypasses the standard reporting procedure, which means it could easily be overlooked. 

 

On 6/20/2023 at 3:00 AM, Mark Allison said:

Perhaps @Leeor Gottlieb could weigh in on this? 

 

On 6/20/2023 at 5:10 AM, Nathan Parker said:

Yes, please continue to use "Report Corrections" for these. We were attempting to consolidate a few forum threads that reported some issues early on, but now we're re-directing people to using "Report Corrections" (which has been the original policy). I can lock this thread if need be so people don't add to it. 

 

 

I have already reported these issues via the report function, long before posting this thread, and they were never corrected. That's the reason for this thread. To try to revive the updates on these modules. 

[Accordance Enthusiast]

On 6/20/2023 at 3:00 AM, Mark Allison said:

Perhaps @Leeor Gottlieb could weigh in on this? 

 

I would be grateful, but really you don't need a professor to spend his time on such a basic mistake as this one:

 

On 6/20/2023 at 3:00 AM, Mark Allison said:

Quoting @Accordance Enthusiast:

 

Targums Tagged errors:

Good recourse, but occasionally the parsing of the Aramaic words is clearly wrong.

 

E.g. in Gen. 6:4 the unambiguous plural form “עלין” is erroneously parsed as a “peal participle masculine singular”. The same mistake also occurs in Num. 27:21, Num. 34:2, Due. 4:5.

Edited June 22, 2023 by Accordance Enthusiast

[Mark Allison]

4 hours ago, Accordance Enthusiast said:

 

I would be grateful, but really you don't need a professor to spend his time on such a basic mistake as this one:

 

 

I only know one person who still works at Accordance who could make this correction, and he's extremely busy with other tasks. My guess is that if it's going to be done in a reasonable amount of time, it's going to be done by an outside party. 

Edited June 22, 2023 by Mark Allison

[Accordance Enthusiast]

@Nathan Parker Look at this one,

 

Shalom!

[Dr. Nathan Parker]

If there are any other threads on here of modules with tagging issues, feel free to link to them in this thread.

[Accordance Enthusiast]

Here's another issue with the Mishnah Kaufman:

 

How could this word possibly be a masculine participle?! 

 

The form is either a fem. sin. participle, or a third masc. sin. perfect.

 

The context shows it is a Nifal Perfect third masculine singular. 

 

Edited November 9, 2023 by Accordance Enthusiast

[Dr. Nathan Parker]

Are there any scholars or highly-skilled students that would be interested in either re-checking these modules or even a certain portion of these modules? I'm kicking around an idea we might want to try. I won't elaborate on it publicly yet since I don't want to over-promise something, but anyone that would be interested or who knows someone that could be interested is welcome to DM or email me.