Vowel points, Accents, Dagesh, and Consonantal issues in various Hebrew and Aramaic texts.

[Benjamin Denckla]

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.

[Accordance Enthusiast]

9 hours 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 WLC 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. 

 

Accordance should correct such mistakes with permission from the publishers.

[miketisdell]

13 hours ago, Accordance Enthusiast said:

Accordance should correct such mistakes with permission from the publishers.

 

No, Accordance should report these mistakes to the publisher (as you also can) and then adopt a revised text if the publisher publishes a revision of the text. This is how they handle all mistakes in all of their sources. In this case, I expect that BHS will not be fixed as I do not expect a new release of BHS, but the BHQ editors might consider a fix as BHQ is not even complete at this point. I do think that it is quite surprising that BHS notes the issue for Deut. 12:9 in the apparatus but this is completely ignored in both the apparatus and textual commentary of BHQ. I do think that is something that I hope the editors of BHQ would remedy. 

Note: If Accordance makes a change that is not found in the published text, then it because a serious problem when making citations. Something that is very important to anyone who is using this software for scholarly work. 

Edited February 9, 2023 by miketisdell

[Accordance Enthusiast]

11 hours ago, miketisdell said:

 

No, Accordance should report these mistakes to the publisher (as you also can) and then adopt a revised text if the publisher publishes a revision of the text. This is how they handle all mistakes in all of their sources. In this case, I expect that BHS will not be fixed as I do not expect a new release of BHS, but the BHQ editors might consider a fix as BHQ is not even complete at this point. I do think that it is quite surprising that BHS notes the issue for Deut. 12:9 in the apparatus but this is completely ignored in both the apparatus and textual commentary of BHQ. I do think that is something that I hope the editors of BHQ would remedy. 

Note: If Accordance makes a change that is not found in the published text, then it because a serious problem when making citations. Something that is very important to anyone who is using this software for scholarly work. 

 

As far as I know Accordance have already made corrections to BHS that are not in the hard copies. 

[Accordance Enthusiast]

For example, BHS hard copies still have this mistake: "הֳשַּׁמָּ֔ה" (With Dagesh)

But Accordance's BHS have corrected this to: "הֳשַׁמָּ֔ה" (Without Dagesh).

This example is from Lev. 26:34.

 

So, I repeat my request to have the remaining mistakes corrected as soon as possible.

[Benjamin Denckla]

3 hours ago, Accordance Enthusiast said:

For example, BHS hard copies still have this mistake: "הֳשַּׁמָּ֔ה" (With Dagesh)

But Accordance's BHS have corrected this to: "הֳשַׁמָּ֔ה" (Without Dagesh).

This example is from Lev. 26:34.

 

So, I repeat my request to have the remaining mistakes corrected as soon as possible.

 

I'd like to know more from someone at Oak Tree about this correction (removal of dagesh from shin of השמה in Lev 26:34 in BHS-T). Knowing more about this correction would help us know if it is feasible to ask them to make more corrections like it.

 

Like, I'd like to know:

• In what version of BHS-T was this correction made (what Accordance module version number (current is 1.8))?
• Under the authority of what policy (if any) was this correction made? For instance, was this a correction made in WLC, and the Accordance policy what that corrections made in WLC (and only corrections made in WLC?) were allowed in BHS-T? (WLC started as a transcription of BHS and made corrections from there, over the years.) Were corrections made in WLC (up to some version of WLC) not only allowed but also required to be replicated in BHS-T? I.e., is BHS-T equivalent to some version of WLC (modulo inherent differences like lacking qere letters)?
• What is the current Oak Tree policy regarding corrections to BHS-T?

This may be the wrong Accordance forum for this post to get the attention of the right people at Accordance. Original Languages might be a better forum than this one (Technical Support). I wonder if there is some way to "cross-post." I might try to just put a link to this post/thread in a post there on Original Languages.

 

[Dr. Nathan Parker]

I saw your other thread, and I’ll see what kind of answer I can get on this.

[Dr. Nathan Parker]

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

[Accordance Enthusiast]

Here is the previous conclusion on the matter:

 

[Accordance Enthusiast]

Another example of Accordance corrections / improvements that have already been implemented is Ps. 21:14.

Printed BHS and Accordance ETCBC have "בְעֻזֶּ֑ךָ"(wrong, missing Dagesh), but Accordance BHS & HMT-W4 have "בְּעֻזֶּ֑ךָ" (correct).

 

Please continue with such correction until all the problems are solved.

Edited February 15, 2023 by Accordance Enthusiast

[Benjamin Denckla]

For those Accordance users willing to sometimes forgo the benefits of Accordance integration in order to use an LC transcription better than any available inside Accordance, you may be interested that a new version of UXLC has been released, announced here: Unicode/XML Leningrad Codex: Updated text, UXLC 1.8 (Build 26.9, 1 Apr 2023) - B-Hebrew: The Biblical Hebrew Forum (biblicalhumanities.org).

[Accordance Enthusiast]

On 4/1/2023 at 2:11 AM, Benjamin Denckla said:

For those Accordance users willing to sometimes forgo the benefits of Accordance integration in order to use an LC transcription better than any available inside Accordance, you may be interested that a new version of UXLC has been released, announced here: Unicode/XML Leningrad Codex: Updated text, UXLC 1.8 (Build 26.9, 1 Apr 2023) - B-Hebrew: The Biblical Hebrew Forum (biblicalhumanities.org).

 

Thanks @Benjamin Denckla!

 

Is there any way do download your accurate transcription for importing into Accordance?

[Benjamin Denckla]

7 hours ago, Accordance Enthusiast said:

Is there any way do download your accurate transcription for importing into Accordance?

 

• AFAIK there is no way to import a user-created "first class" text (a module) into Accordance. And even if there were a way to import it, AFAIK there is no way to create such a module since the module format is not public.
• I have some vague memory of Accordance having a "second class" type of text, I think called a "User Text." I'd be glad to convert UXLC to that format if:
  • I could be provided with documentation of that format
  • That format supports UXLC's data reasonably well

 

[jlm]

On 4/2/2023 at 8:41 AM, Benjamin Denckla said:

 

• AFAIK there is no way to import a user-created "first class" text (a module) into Accordance. And even if there were a way to import it, AFAIK there is no way to create such a module since the module format is not public.
• I have some vague memory of Accordance having a "second class" type of text, I think called a "User Text." I'd be glad to convert UXLC to that format if:
  • I could be provided with documentation of that format
  • That format supports UXLC's data reasonably well

 

It is indeed called a User Text. The official documentation is here: https://accordancefiles2.com/helpfiles/OSX13/Default.htm#topics/05_dd/preparing_the_text-ub.htm?TocPath=Digging%20Deeper%7CImporting%20Bibles%7C_____2

I link to the Accordance 13 version since the corresponding page in the Accordance 14 help has a broken link.

 

User Bibles can represent text, including Unicode text, and have basic formatting like italics, superscript, and colors, but do not support tagging or footnotes. There are also things to know that are not in the help. Fabian, who hasn't posted for a while, became an expert in importing texts, and his expertise was built into a tool called the BibleMultiConverter. It can read and write many formats, including the Accordance User Text import format. I found that the most reliable way to import Bibles.

 

[Benjamin Denckla]

@jlm Thanks for this information about the User Text format. Taking a look at it brought back a vague memory of having tried and failed to use this format before due to lack of support for Hebrew and/or right-to-left text in general. But this memory is only vague. And even if this memory is accurate, these issues may have been fixed by Oak Tree in the many years since I (think I) tried it. So, it may well be worth me giving it another try when I have some time to do so.

[Brian K. Mitchell]

Don't know if this counts as an issue but back in 2018  the ETCBC and the BHS-W4 both based on the printed BHS had a different accent in Genesis 5:29. 

 

[Benjamin Denckla]

3 hours ago, Brian K. Mitchell said:

Don't know if this counts as an issue but back in 2018 the ETCBC and the BHS-W4 both based on the printed BHS had a different accent in Genesis 5:29. 

 

In my opinion you are being too diplomatic to merely say that these two editions had a different accent in Genesis 5:29. I'm willing to say that BHS-W4 (V4.14), which had/has only the telisha gedolah accent, is just plain wrong. For those who can read modern Hebrew, (or for those who, like me, can struggle through with Google Translate) see MAM with doc: Genesis 5:29. It seems there is some debate about the order of the two marks, and some debate about whether the second of the two marks is over the letter he instead of crowding onto the letter zayin. But there seems to be no real debate that there is both a gershayim and a telisha gedolah on this word (זה). Also see the shorter note in UXLC (tanach.us) Genesis 5:29.

Edited September 27, 2023 by Benjamin Denckla

[Brian K. Mitchell]

On 9/27/2023 at 10:37 PM, Benjamin Denckla said:

I'm willing to say that BHS-W4 (V4.14), which had/has only the telisha gedolah accent, is just plain wrong.

You are correct!

The HMT-W4 (V4.20) the current version or rather rebranding of the same database retains this error!

On the other hand the BHQ-GEN module reads correctly having both a gershayim and a telisha gedolah on the (זה).

[Accordance Enthusiast]

@Nathan Parker, Look at this one,

 

Shalom!

[Accordance Enthusiast]

This seems to be another mistake in the HMT-W4 module. The words "[כפר העמנה]" should be preceded by "[ו]", because the Qere does not remove the Waw conjunction:

Here is the manuscript to confirm that the Waw is not removed from וכפר in the Qere:

 

 

Compare the normal (correct for HMT-W4) way of doing it below:

[Accordance Enthusiast]

Here is a similar one, 2kings 14:7:

Should say [גיא-מלח][ב]

[Accordance Enthusiast]

Another one:

[Accordance Enthusiast]

Here is yet another issue. In Job 38:1 the Accordance text HMT-W4 shows exactly no difference between the Ketiv and Qere:

 

But here is the manuscript:

 

So the Ketiv should be "מנ הסערה" with a non-final Nun.

[Accordance Enthusiast]

The same mistake also occurs in Job 40:6:

 

 

The ketiv should say "מנ סערה" as in the printed BHS.

 

In fact, I would say there is no space between the "מנ" and "סערה", and the Ketiv should perhaps be "מנסערה"

[Benjamin Denckla]

12 hours ago, Accordance Enthusiast said:

This seems to be another mistake in the HMT-W4 module. The words "[כפר העמנה]" should be preceded by "[ו]", because the Qere does not remove the Waw conjunction:

Here is the manuscript to confirm that the Waw is not removed from וכפר in the Qere:

 

 

Compare the normal (correct for HMT-W4) way of doing it below:

 

I'm confused: to me the "elephant in the room" isn't the relatively subtle issue of the vav but rather the radical suggestion that these are cases in which the qere (and presumably the ketiv) consists of a two-word phrase. Such cases exist, but are rare, and to my knowledge these two cases are not among them. (Josh. 18:24 & 2Sam. 21:16). I.e., in Josh. 18:24 my concern is not so much that כפר lost its initial vav but that it got swept up into the qere altogether. Similarly, but regarding the second rather than the first word, why did בנב get swept up into the qere of 2Sam. 21:16?

 

Here's MAM in these cases:

 

Edited October 9, 2023 by Benjamin Denckla