Benjamin Denckla Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 1 minute ago, miketisdell said: Again, I do not doubt that the Dagesh was erased and that the editors of BHS and BHQ were wrong for including it. However, this is not a mistake in Accordance as they have correctly copied the BHS and BHQ and WTT texts. An appeal needs to be made to the editors of BHQ if one wants to see these texts changed, if the editors accept that change then Accordance will adopt the change. The only option for Accordance would be to add an additional Hebrew text from a source that does not include the dagesh or to create their own Hebrew text. They should not remove the dagesh because then it would not accurately reflect the source texts they are using. @miketisdellWell said, and I agree. Like a politician, I'll use this as an opportunity to pivot to my desired talking points, which is to use this as an opportunity to reiterate that it would be great to have an Accordance version of the following to online Hebrew Bibles: UXLC and MAM. They each have something different to offer, since UXLC is a diplomatic edition of the LC, and MAM is a general-purpose edition using the AC as its primary reference, even to the extent of applying AC's "method" to sections missing from the AC. Most relevant to the point at hand is, these are "live," evolving editions. So, if an Accordance user finds a place where things could be improved one of these editions, that improvement can be suggested to that edition's editors, and if accepted, that improvement will find its way back into the Accordance edition if Oak Tree takes regular updates to that edition. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now