Martin Z Posted November 22, 2014 Share Posted November 22, 2014 Hello, usually, triple click leads to the 1st homonym. "⇧ + triple click" leads to the specific reference. However, in this case, however, it leads to the 2nd homonym. the reference is related to the 1st homonym. so strange... Blessings, Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michel Gilbert Posted November 22, 2014 Share Posted November 22, 2014 Hi Martin, In Windows 8.1 it goes to מושׁ I. See screenshot. Regards, Michel תמשׁ, Judg 6,18.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Z Posted November 22, 2014 Author Share Posted November 22, 2014 Hi Martin, In Windows 8.1 it goes to מושׁ I. See screenshot. Regards, Michel Hi Michel, That's because you have changed your preference setting (I see Jdg 6:18 is highlighted). try ⇧ + triple click. Blessings, Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michel Gilbert Posted November 22, 2014 Share Posted November 22, 2014 Hi, For those who don't know, to go to the correct homograph I checked Edit > Preferences >Amplify > Include reference when amplifying from text to tool. Martin, you are right. If I uncheck that box, it goes to מושׁ II. But I'd rather go to the correct homograph. Don't you want to go to מושׁ I also? I think this is how the programmers tackled the homograph issue in instant details in iOS, discussed at http://www.accordancebible.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=13540 Regards, Michel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Z Posted November 22, 2014 Author Share Posted November 22, 2014 Thanks, Michel. What I wanted to say is: Accordance usually display the 1st homonym while I triple click a word. In this case, however, it display the 2nd one. My instant guess was, Accordance was trying to connect the word with the right homonym (similar function with searching with the reference, however, not all entries have all references. therefore, if Accordance can automatically display the right entry (homonym), it is more advanced that the searching with reference. I think it is the same issue you address in the post you offer above.) The strange thing is that, the 2nd homonym is the wrong entry in this case. Why then does Accordance lead me to the 2nd homonym? I suspected that it might be a bug. That's the reason I posted this post in "Bug Swatters" section. Blessings, Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joel Brown Posted November 22, 2014 Share Posted November 22, 2014 Martin, this has already been improved in the next version. We have some routines in place to find the 'best' result in case the reference is not provided, and these weren't handling Hebrew homographs properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Z Posted November 22, 2014 Author Share Posted November 22, 2014 Thanks, Joel. It's great to see Accordance has become smarter and smarter. Blessings, Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michel Gilbert Posted November 22, 2014 Share Posted November 22, 2014 Hi Martin, I guess I misunderstood. I agree with you. Accordance usually displays the first homograph; in a few instances, it displays the second. I reported the same thing for חלשׁ in Is 14:12 at http://www.accordancebible.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=13494&page=3 The homograph numbers are sometimes different in HAL/BDB and CDCH, e.g., מושׁ II in HAL equals מושׁ I in CDCH. I wonder if this has anything to do with it. Hi Joel, Are you referring to an update to 11.0.2? Regards to both, Michel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Z Posted November 22, 2014 Author Share Posted November 22, 2014 Hi Michel, I guess it was because of my poor description of the problem (English is my 2nd language...). I hope it is not 11.0.2 that Joel refers to, cause this is the version I am using right now. Blessings, Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michel Gilbert Posted November 22, 2014 Share Posted November 22, 2014 Hi Martin, You're too kind. The problem wasn't your English. You were simply recording a bug; I went on a tangent and offered a partial solution. Regards, Michel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now