4 replies to this topic

[yancywsmith]

I am a Ph.D. student at Brite Divinity School and a switch-hitter (Greek and Hebrew) Bible Translation consultant for World Bible Translation Center in Fort Worth. Occasionally I notice parsing errors in the Instant Details box but up to this time have never made a comment on any of them. Here goes. According to KB, the parsing of 'edotayv in Psalms 119:2 should be based on the root AYIN VAV DALETH and NOT AYIN DALETH HE. These forms are easily confused. I notice that the data base keyed to KB must have the same identification, since you have to go looking for 'eduth and it is not highlighted. You wouldn't see it at all if your search were keyed to "articles" only in KB.

Yancy

Edited by yancywsmith, 07 October 2005 - 03:26 PM.

[Helen Brown]

I agree this is an error as KB is the standard. I will pass it on to the Westminster Hebrew Institute which is responsible for the tagging.

Please send such reports to me directly rather than posting them on the Forum, same with any kind of typos, as they are not usually helpful to other users.

[Martin Shields]

Please send such reports to me directly rather than posting them on the Forum, same with any kind of typos, as they are not usually helpful to other users.

I think it could be quite helpful to have a list of verses with known errors in BHS-W4 or GNT-T (or any other tagged text, for that matter) so that I could double check any searches I do which return those verses.

For example, in the past I've done searches on interrogative ? vs. instances of the definite article and found quite a number of errors: if there had been such a list it would have certainly expediated the analysis which required individual checking of the results! I have submitted my findings of errors, but I don't know that there has been an update since making the submission.

Do updates to modules include a comprehensive list of "fixes"? I know I've submitted errors, but the lack of feedback on what then happens leaves me uncertain as to whether and when they have been addressed.

[Helen Brown]

Martin:

Your error reports are always noted and passed on for correction. I just do not usually reply to the reports. We do not keep a list of known errors, sorry! The problem with some of the texts is that we are not at liberty to make corrections ourselves.

[CapnKirk]

Yancy,

Thanks for this report. You are indeed correct. The HALOT lemma for Ps 119:2 is ("DW.T. We've entered your report into our error-tracking database. You can follow our progress on it here:

http://whi.wts.edu/W...BugTracker/1251

Thanks again.

Kirk

I think it could be quite helpful to have a list of verses with known errors in BHS-W4 or GNT-T (or any other tagged text, for that matter) so that I could double check any searches I do which return those verses.

For example, in the past I've done searches on interrogative ? vs. instances of the definite article and found quite a number of errors: if there had been such a list it would have certainly expediated the analysis which required individual checking of the results! I have submitted my findings of errors, but I don't know that there has been an update since making the submission.

Do updates to modules include a comprehensive list of "fixes"? I know I've submitted errors, but the lack of feedback on what then happens leaves me uncertain as to whether and when they have been addressed.

The Westminster Hebrew Institute maintains a "bug tracking" database which is available via a web interface to the general public: http://whi.wts.edu/W...ORPH/BugTracker. You can see what the outstanding "known errors" are by browsing this database.

With every release to our licensees, we include a file called, e.g., "ReleaseNotes44.html", a web page with links to the bug number of every single change to our database since the last general release. I don't know offhand if Accordance provides this file to the user in their distribution. I know that other software vendors do as part of the documentation provided. (We probably should make this available from our web site. This is a good idea. Thanks.)

Blessings,

Kirk