Phrase Tagging

[Abram K-J]

Okay, I'll bite--what is "phrase tagging," and what does it mean for studying the NIV11 in Accordance? In particular, what does it add beyond G/K numbers, etc.?

[JonathanHuber]

It means a whole phrase is tagged when necessary. You can see this already in the Mounce Reverse-Interlinear NT. As an example, ἐγέννησεν in Matt. 1:2 is linked to "father" in the ESVS but to "was the father of" with "father" in a different shade in the Mounce.

 

[Joel Brown]

To be fair, the level of detail and accuracy in the tagging is phenomenal, one or two steps beyond the already impressive Mounce NT. I'm not a huge fan of the NIV text, but the capabilities in this tagging are really exciting.

[JonathanHuber]

Joel, would you mind commenting on the additional capabilities that this tagging enables? Or direct us to somewhere that discusses this? I didn't see anything with a general web search. I really only use the phrase tagging in Mounce as a more accurate and thorough version of the regular Strongs/GK tagging, so I'd like to learn anything I'm overlooking.

[Joel Brown]

I doubt you'll see much published as this is brand, brand new, bleeding edge stuff. Off the top of my head, additional improvements:

 

1) Phrase tagged Old Testament

2) Distinction between 'primary' words (that had a direct translation from the Hebrew word) and 'secondary' words (that are implied or necessary for grammar or style). e.g.

Gen 1:2 "Let there be". "Let" and "there" are secondary words, while "be" is the primary word.

vs.

Gen 1:9 "Let the water under the sky be gathered". The phrase is "Let....be gathered" Here, "let" is a secondary word, but both "be" and "gathered" are primary words, directly related to key H07748.

3) Hidden words. This is present in the MOUNCE-NT, but not as complete. When words are present in the original, but not needed in English, they are highlighted in the space between words. e.g. Gen 1:1 "God created the heavens". In between "created" and "the" is the marker for the Hebrew direct object.

4) Key subtags. Three important subtags are present throughout the text. 'NDT' - 'Not directly translated', marking words present in one language and not in another. 'OBJ' - 'Object', marking words representing the Hebrew direct object marker. 'SUB' - 'Substitute', marking words that substitute in a related word from the original. SUB can be hard to understand without an example: Gen 1:4: "God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.". For "he" in "he separated", the key is the full 'elohim', but since it is simply translated as the pronoun 'he', it is also marked as SUB. You can search for KEY SUB, and even combined with other keys. For example, I just used "[KEY elohim]@[KEY SUB]" to find that example.

 

I think there's more, but Rick B. would have to fill in, as he is most familiar with the text. As you can see, its some really exciting stuff. With the full accurate phrase matching, hidden words, and subtags, you can very easily have an excellent impression of the original text straight from the english.

[Abram K-J]

It means a whole phrase is tagged when necessary.

 

Yes... this is what I would have already expected with an English translation that is tagged to the original text. Of course translation is not going to be one-word-for-one-word, so sometimes two English words would need to be tagged to one Greek word for it to be (at least in my mind) considered an accurately tagged text.

 

I've seen instances where this was not the case, and when I (or others) asked about it on the forums, the response has usually been something like, "These are tagged texts, but they're not totally accurate; don't put too much stock in them," and so on.

 

I read and understand Joel's helpful response, but find myself still wondering with Jonathan (#4) how this is more than just a "more accurate and thorough version" of what already exists?

 

In that sense, I wouldn't have expected it to be a paid upgrade--just bringing it to the expected level of quality/accuracy, etc. that Accordance positions itself as having in its texts. But it does sound like a lot of work went into it, so I don't think there's really reason to object to a paid upgrade. I'm still missing, though, what the additional capabilities (beyond improved accuracy) are for searching, research, etc. Maybe there's more, as Joel mentions, that Rick B. will mention?

[JonathanHuber]

Well, the multiple subtags are definitely something new.

[Helen Brown]

Rick Bennett is preparing a blog post and demonstration video, but as we are all busy now with the ETS/AAR/SBL meetings, it may take a few more days to post.

[Abram K-J]

Thanks, Helen--will look forward to it. Hope you all are having a good time at the meetings.

[Rick Bennett]

I sent in a screen cast to our marketing folks yesterday which will go a long way in explaining and demonstrating this. It will also be accompanied with a blog post from one of our marketing team members. Once you see it, I'll be glad to answer more specific questions.

 

A year of work has gone into this, along with many new application enhancements to make it possible. It is well worth the upgrade price in my opinion, which I hope you'll see as well.

 

In addition, the current NIV11-GK (non-enhanced version) is also getting a free update that will bring it in-line with all the translation differences from the 1984 to 2011 underlying text, just not with the added enhanced tagging elements (which will again make more sense when you see it explained in more detail).

[JonathanHuber]

Thanks, Rick. I'm looking forward to learning more about this.

[Natan Rubenstein]

As a new customer and user, I am finding that there are several things I like about Accordance, and probably as many that I do not like. Here, I would ask for your terms to be defined very carefully, for your system here is not about the original languages—it is about assessing the translation technique of English translators. This raises a host of questions about the quality and education of those who are working on these databases, as well as the need to provide an additional material explaining the methodology used in your translation analysis. One thing is for sure: this does not grant access to the original—a very fuzzy notion at best. To have access to the original is to read the original. Let's keep the discussion honest and call a spade a spade, yes?

[Peter Brylov Christensen]

I don't think that anyone here would even entertain the notion that any translation or tagging system, no matter how literal it may be, will ever be the same as reading the original. Not by a long shot. But like Jonathan and Abram I don't see the big difference from the current tagging system other than a higher level of sophistication. So I'm really looking forward to learn more about this

 

With kind regards

 

Peter Christensen

[Rick Bennett]

As a new customer and user, I am finding that there are several things I like about Accordance, and probably as many that I do not like. Here, I would ask for your terms to be defined very carefully, for your system here is not about the original languages—it is about assessing the translation technique of English translators. This raises a host of questions about the quality and education of those who are working on these databases, as well as the need to provide an additional material explaining the methodology used in your translation analysis. One thing is for sure: this does not grant access to the original—a very fuzzy notion at best. To have access to the original is to read the original. Let's keep the discussion honest and call a spade a spade, yes?

 

I'm not really sure who or what specifically you are directing your comments towards. No one on our end is claiming that key number (whether GK or Strong's) tagged texts are equivalent to reading the original languages of the Bible.

 

As for the NIV11-GK/E, to which this post is directed, it is the product of over 30 years of work with the NIV Concordance Project (with their first published concordance in 1980). The main editors of this work are Edward Goodrich and John Kohlenberger, with the latter being the current editor. John has published over two-dozen titles over the last 30 years related to Bible concordances. For the 2011 revision he has gone through the entire text of the NIV and has updated and corrected decisions on tagging, and when necessary has consulted with the Committee for Bible Translation (CBT) who direct the translation work for the NIV. The end result is not perfect, and in itself does not ever claim to be an exact representation of its underlying text, but is probably as close as any resource of this type will ever be.

 

And generally speaking, there resides a certain amount of trust on the part of the user and the creators of electronic resources like this; i.e., that the people who are creating them are qualified to do so. This is no different than a tagged Greek or Hebrew text, or for that matter even a commentary. While we welcome questions, my recommendation is that you give us the benefit of the doubt before casting suspicion on our work. But, maybe I'm reading too much in to your comment.

 

I hope this helps to explain things.

[Natan Rubenstein]

. . . you can very easily have an excellent impression of the original text straight from the english."

 

As I said, a very fuzzy notion at best. If one can read the original languages, then why would one read in english? If one cannot read the underlying languages of composition, then it stands to reason she will do so through a translation. As such, you misunderstand my comments and have overlooked the very issue I surface. I am concerned here about the "marketing" used to describe this feature. What this feature does more than anything is to permit a study of translation technique, in which case it stands to reason it should be done by someone who knows a little something about translation.

 

I concur with your point that electronic resources are secondary to academic research, and in that sense it probably doesn't matter who or what computer produced the results.

[JonathanHuber]

It seems to me that "impression" sufficiently allows for a still-significant difference, as you correctly noted, between a tagged translation and reading the original language.

[Natan Rubenstein]

Yes, I did correctly note that didn't I. Yet, I made that note in quite a different context than that of "impression."