Nathan Parker Posted January 9 Share Posted January 9 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! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Fidel Posted January 9 Share Posted January 9 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. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathan Parker Posted January 9 Author Share Posted January 9 Thanks for the info! I’ll chat with our developers about this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accordance Enthusiast Posted January 9 Share Posted January 9 (edited) 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 by Anonymous 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathan Parker Posted January 9 Author Share Posted January 9 Thanks for the feedback on this as well! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accordance Enthusiast Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accordance Enthusiast Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accordance Enthusiast Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 Hi @Nathan Parker, could you please pin this thread - I had trouble finding it today. Thanks. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accordance Enthusiast Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 Maybe this should also be moved to Tech support where we report the other bugs? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathan Parker Posted January 27 Author Share Posted January 27 Done and done! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accordance Enthusiast Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schulschlus Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accordance Enthusiast Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 Another problem in the Mishnah. Should say Qal not Hifil. The 'He' at the beginning is an interrogative particle. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathan Parker Posted February 14 Author Share Posted February 14 Moved this to Biblical Languages and ensured it was pinned so that it doesn’t get lost under Tech Support. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.c3123c857d1029f98e39c9394adc358d.png)
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now