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 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.

 

[Nathan Parker]

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

[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 by Accordance Enthusiast