Abram K-J Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 I'm assuming others will be able to replicate this... comparing Göttingen and Rahlfs at Isaiah 10:29, a word is highlighted in Compare that actually seems not to be different at all. There was a (perhaps?) related thread I started about this earlier. Any ideas on what's going on in the attached shot? I understand there's a versification difference, but that shouldn't account for what I'm seeing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Kuo Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 Abram, Do the two words have different morphological tagging? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abram K-J Posted February 1, 2013 Author Share Posted February 1, 2013 (edited) Göttingen: φάραγγα φάραγξ Noun fem sing acc valley -- Rahlfs: φάραγγα φάραγξ Noun fem sing acc (comm) valley -- "comm" is for "common," right? Otherwise identical. Besides, doesn't "Compare" just compare the text itself (i.e., the surface text) and not the tagging? Edited February 1, 2013 by AbramKJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anon Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 Compare is subject to the desired preferences (Preferences > Compare Text > Compare Text Settings). If you have Accordance set to consider the tags, then yes this will be flagged as a difference due to the (comm). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abram K-J Posted February 1, 2013 Author Share Posted February 1, 2013 It's not, though--just set to compare "Words." Or does that also include tags? You can see my selections in the screenshot above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anon Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 It does look like it's related to the versification. Joel would have to confirm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abram K-J Posted February 1, 2013 Author Share Posted February 1, 2013 I wonder why a versification issue would only affect that and one other spot, rather than, e.g., the first word after the versification difference. But I'll take your word for it, James, and see what Joel says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anon Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 (edited) Without seeing the code, I cannot say for sure. I was inferring to the verse, for that was the only visible thing I could see. It depends on how the algorithm is comparing the text. It is also telling how "(29)" is not being treated as a verse in Accordance (e.g., change the verse appearance and (29) remains stylized on the text, and not the verse). Edited February 1, 2013 by James Tucker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joel Brown Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 Since you have your compare set to Multiple Texts, you don't see the differences in the LXXG pane, which would help explain the issue. As James pointed out, it is a versification issue. See the attached image: When Accordance sees the start of verse 29, it matches the καὶ παρελεύσεται to each other. Then the εἰς Μαγεδω matches to φάραγγα, and the long blue 'added' section matches to the red line 'missing' marker. So, this is a combination of the verse 29 marker being in such a different place, and the fact that καὶ παρελεύσεται occurs at the start of the verse both ways, so Accordance still does some matching. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abram K-J Posted February 1, 2013 Author Share Posted February 1, 2013 A great explanation--thanks, Joel. 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