Questions From A Beginner - Accordance 11 vs Logos 6 Original Language Study

[Rick Bennett]

Daniel R. and Yaakov,

 

May I suggest inquiring further about our syntax resources before assuming they utilize an inferior linguistic methodology? I doubt seriously that the scholars behind them would agree with you. Your comments (especially to new or non-users) reflect a representation of our products that may not be operating on the best knowledge of them and those working on them.

 

Daniel, I would also encourage you to consider that you may not know who we employ or work with in regards to original language resources. This is not to say that Steve Runge et al. are not credentialed and working on important resources, just that you probably do not know exactly who we work with since we do not exactly publicize it.

 

Thanks for your feedback.

[Yaakov Jannis]

Dear Rick Bennett,

 

And may I ask that you read the comments above with more care. I've done my research on your database. I do believe that I even mentioned an above academic Encyclopedia article which details some of the issues in this area (and based on your comments it clearly shows you've not read it). As someone who is new to Accordance, I find your comments rather grotesque. Furthermore, you assume that the only place to learn about the Accordance Syntax database is here on this forums. You are wrong.

[Daniel R]

*

Edited April 11, 2015 by Daniel R

[Yaakov Jannis]

I thought I was being nice. 

[Rick Bennett]

Dear Rick Bennett,

 

And may I ask that you read the comments above with more care. I've done my research on your database. I do believe that I even mentioned an above academic Encyclopedia article which details some of the issues in this area (and based on your comments it clearly shows you've not read it). As someone who is new to Accordance, I find your comments rather grotesque. Furthermore, you assume that the only place to learn about the Accordance Syntax database is here on this forums. You are wrong.

 

Yaakov,

 

Please accept my apology. I certainly did not mean to say anything "grotesque" (and honestly, I do not know what that even means in this context). Maybe I can clarify: if you want to know more about why our scholars chose the method (theory, etc) applied in our syntax databases, consider asking. They (Dr. Robert Holmstedt as one example) do monitor our user forums, and are usually happy to answer questions, especially for those interested in this area of research. They can also cite many academic sources (and ones which they've written) which support their decision. That is not to say that some (many?) disagree, just that there was a lot of academic inquiry that went into this before the work was even started. Suggesting that they did not make the right choice leaves the potential impression that they simply did so out of ignorance. That is not the case, and I wanted to make sure that anyone reading this does not get that impression.

 

We welcome any and all feedback (within reasonable guidelines); please do continue to join in the discussion.

 

Daniel,

 

Thanks so much for your support over the years! And, thanks for clarifying your comments. I still do not really find it helpful to compare who we may or may not have on our staff with our competitor in regards to the syntactical resources (one might actually view our business model more effective in some regards). And as I alluded to, I think some of the work they're doing is great; it just is not our focus right now.

 

All the best,

 

Rick

[Daniel R]

*

Edited April 11, 2015 by Daniel R

[Yaakov Jannis]

Dear Rick Bennett,

 

Thanks for the apology. Regarding the use of "grotesque" I'd encourage you to look it up in OED.

 

kol tuv,

Yaakov 

[John Fidel]

. By engaging the comparisons here, on blogs, at conventions, or wherever, Accordance opens itself to more comparisons by users who own multiple Bible software products.

 

This is an interesting comment given that the only reason the OP posted here was at Rick Mansfield's suggestion he do so when this was asked on the Logos Forum in order to provide the Accordance perspective. Rick did so in a very professional way and I approve of his suggestion to the OP. The OP is just starting to learn the original languages, not doing academic work on the DDS or other highly academic ventures. My point on the Logos Forum, which I will briefly make here is that both programs are excellent. The differences for a beginner are not significant, but that taking time learning to use each program is important as there is a learning curve. Also to spend time learning the languages, not learning multiple programs. The OP had already purchased a base package in Logos and was looking to add Accordance as well for his learning the original languages.

 

Customers who use both programs will have positives and negatives to comment about both programs. Those on the Logos site will tend to be more positive regarding Logos and those here more positive regarding Accordance. No one is truly objective, but those that use both programs have valid opinions based on their experience. Someone studying the DDS has valid complaints about Logos, but the complaints are specific to his experience and study and should not be applied across the entire Logos platform any more that a negative comment regarding Accordance should.

 

For many years I had a website and blog that discussed the different bible software programs. My introduction to Accordance was by doing a review of Accordance 5 or 6. I discontinued the site because comparisons became competitions with all sides defending or refuting comments made.

 

I understand competition being a CPA. I understand that users are really selecting platforms to build their libraries, not just a program. I understand the need to promote. I am just a bit weary of the need to do so with negative comments regarding the competition. Both these companies have employees that work really hard at providing great software and customer service. They have different business models and marketing strategies. But both are doing their best to provide a valuable product for the study of God's word. Users entering the biblical software market should investigate and evaluate what is best for them. Most of the comments on this thread offer great positives and customer experience. But the thread has become irrelevant for what the OP wanted to know.

 

Accordance has made significant efforts to be more than the scholar's favorite software. Once the discussion turns to highly specific scholarly endeavors, most new users tune out... like when I decide to explain tax issues using the internal revenue code sections.

 

Hope my post does not offend as that is not my intent. OK back to those tax returns...

[Julia Falling]

Thank you, John, for getting this thread back on track.  Thank you, also, for your irenic approach.

 

Thanks, too, for taking time out of what must be a very hectic schedule to post here.  Would that someone in DC would get serious about reforming the tax code.  It's multiple times longer than the Bible without providing and any eternal benefits to the reader.

Edited April 11, 2015 by Julie Falling

[John Fidel]

  Would that someone in DC would get serious about reforming the tax code.  It's multiple times longer than the Bible without providing and eternal benefits to the reader.

 

LOL. Now that is a true statement!!! Thanks for your kind comments and for your very helpful comments in this post.

[Robert Holmstedt]

I think the last few comments reflect the best use of the forum. It certainly is not the place for Hebrew syntactic arguments, much less debates about linguistic theory. However, since there appears to have been some criticism of the syntax modules, I will offer a few brief comments for general users:

 

1. No database can be made that does not reflect some sort of theory. I work within generative grammar (minimalist programme of the principals and parameters theory), though I have already read and used (very early on in my career) the functional grammars of Simon Dik and M.A.K. Holliday. From the beginning of the release of the syntax project, the underlying principles have been made public so that users could better understand and use the database. 

 

2. The notion that Chomskyan linguistics is somehow old-fashioned (e.g., "from the 1950s") and thus obsolete is strange rhetoric when there are hundreds of linguistics departments in North America and Europe (not to mention China and elsewhere) that teach it and thousands of linguists who work directly in some aspect of Chomsky's minimalist programme. One needs only start browsing the linguistics journals to see that the statements made in this forum do not reflect the larger linguistics world. 

 

3. I take transparency very seriously. How my linguistic approach works out in Hebrew grammar is illustrated by my research. Accordance users can thus further investigate the basis upon which the syntax database is constructed and its implications in my papers, my Hebrew commentaries (Ruth, Esther [forthcoming], and Ecclesiastes [final draft being revised], and in my monograph on the relative clause [forthcoming]). I also post much of my research on a blog I share with John Cook. 

 

4. Finally, a comment on the nature of some of the posts in this thread. I respect (and like) Dean Forbes and Frank Anderson, who made the Anderson-Forbes database, and those who work on the WIVU project, as well as Jan Kroeze who wrote the Brill Encyclopedia article (for which I read a draft he sent me since we exchanged emails as he wrote it). All my interactions with these people suggest that, minimally, they respect me as a scholar and my work, even if they disagree with it. I have chosen what I consider to be the most compelling linguistic theory for my work and so also the syntax database. Even so, I do not see any justification for deriding the other databases or their teams. Such activity is both unscholarly (there is no way to support such statements) and uncharitable. Therefore, I suggest that those who disagree with our database simply choose not to buy it.

 

Indeed, if the mere thought of of a Hebrew database based on generative theory provokes allergic spasms and fits, I recommend staying far far away from it (and me, please).  Finally, for those whose strong syntactic opinions make available databases unsuitable for their own use, the answer is quite simple -- make your own. I promise I won't come along and force you to use mine.

[Daniel R]

Dr. Holmstedt, your database is an innovation in bringing the Minimalist Program to a wider audience.

Edited April 12, 2015 by Daniel R

[Fr. Rich]

WIVU?

Rank Abbr. Meaning   WIVU Werkgroep Informatica of the Vrije Universiteit (Dutch: Informatics Working Group of the Vrije University; Amsterdam; Netherlands) Search the Web

 

[David Knoll]

I think the last few comments reflect the best use of the forum. It certainly is not the place for Hebrew syntactic arguments, much less debates about linguistic theory. However, since there appears to have been some criticism of the syntax modules, I will offer a few brief comments for general users:

 

1. No database can be made that does not reflect some sort of theory. I work within generative grammar (minimalist programme of the principals and parameters theory), though I have already read and used (very early on in my career) the functional grammars of Simon Dik and M.A.K. Holliday. From the beginning of the release of the syntax project, the underlying principles have been made public so that users could better understand and use the database. 

 

2. The notion that Chomskyan linguistics is somehow old-fashioned (e.g., "from the 1950s") and thus obsolete is strange rhetoric when there are hundreds of linguistics departments in North America and Europe (not to mention China and elsewhere) that teach it and thousands of linguists who work directly in some aspect of Chomsky's minimalist programme. One needs only start browsing the linguistics journals to see that the statements made in this forum do not reflect the larger linguistics world. 

 

3. I take transparency very seriously. How my linguistic approach works out in Hebrew grammar is illustrated by my research. Accordance users can thus further investigate the basis upon which the syntax database is constructed and its implications in my papers, my Hebrew commentaries (Ruth, Esther [forthcoming], and Ecclesiastes [final draft being revised], and in my monograph on the relative clause [forthcoming]). I also post much of my research on a blog I share with John Cook. 

 

4. Finally, a comment on the nature of some of the posts in this thread. I respect (and like) Dean Forbes and Frank Anderson, who made the Anderson-Forbes database, and those who work on the WIVU project, as well as Jan Kroeze who wrote the Brill Encyclopedia article (for which I read a draft he sent me since we exchanged emails as he wrote it). All my interactions with these people suggest that, minimally, they respect me as a scholar and my work, even if they disagree with it. I have chosen what I consider to be the most compelling linguistic theory for my work and so also the syntax database. Even so, I do not see any justification for deriding the other databases or their teams. Such activity is both unscholarly (there is no way to support such statements) and uncharitable. Therefore, I suggest that those who disagree with our database simply choose not to buy it.

 

Indeed, if the mere thought of of a Hebrew database based on generative theory provokes allergic spasms and fits, I recommend staying far far away from it (and me, please).  Finally, for those whose strong syntactic opinions make available databases unsuitable for their own use, the answer is quite simple -- make your own. I promise I won't come along and force you to use mine.

Professor Holmstedt,

I disagree with you and with the generative theory as implemented on Hebrew. Having said that, I don't think I need to subscribe to the generative theory in order to utilise your database and it was useful to me on various occasions. It is true I sometimes have to think how YOU would analyse a clause before I build a search construct, but that is a very small price to pay for an intuitive interface and a database that delivers results. We disagree about theory but I can utilise your database and it contributes to my research. Even when I had difficulties (mostly because of bugs), you were here in the forums always prepared to address every question or problem I encountered. For all that, I thank you wholeheartedly and not only will I continue to use your database which I hope will be complete soon, but I would also buy additional Hebrew syntactical databases you are working on (DSS? Ben Sira?), should Accordance have them on offer.

In short: Thank You! 

[Michael Miles]

I started with Logos when you installed it using 3.5" "floppy" discs.  By the time Logos 5 was about to be released, I had amassed a pretty fair collection of resources pertaining to original language studies.  I was also using BibleWorks.  The extensive Logos library was such a bothersome mess with constant bugs, glitches, errors, and the like with seemingly little efforts being spent on fixing these issues on the part of Logos.  They seemed to be more interested in developing Logos for AS/400, Logos for ColecoVision, and Logos for the Commodore VIC-20 (my first computer) than fixing their current products.  When they needed a cash influx, then a new bug-riddled version was pushed out, compelling everyone to fork over handfuls of loot.  I ended up giving away my entire Logos Library.

 

Accordance on a Mac is like a dream come true.  I can do everything and more than I did in Logos and I never have to go to the E.R. after beating my fist on the desk in righteous indignation.

 

Your mileage may vary.  Just thinking about Logos makes me want to punch a wall.  

 

Have a nice day and choose wisely.  I need to go have some prayer time and simmer down.

Edited April 12, 2015 by Michael Miles

[Timothy Jenney]

I have been following this thread with interest.

 

It's always helpful to know how our customers perceive us. We appreciate your compliments and learn from your criticisms. It's not surprising to me that some prefer one program, others another, still others use both (if for different tasks).

 

By way of help, let me offer this list for evaluating Bible software programs in general:

 

1. Search engine performance (stability, speed, precision, features, platforms supported)

2. Price (initial and upgrades)

3. Resources available for purchase (quality, number, ease of use, cost, accuracy, support for a specific area of interest)

4. Training (quality, availability, cost)

5. Support (responsiveness, effectiveness, overall attitude)

6. Community (Is it friendly? Helpful? Active? Enthusiastic?)

Edited April 13, 2015 by Timothy Jenney

[maverick777]

 

I have been following this thread with interest.

 

It's always helpful to know how our customers perceive us. We appreciate your compliments and learn from your criticisms. It's not surprising to me that some prefer one program, others another, still others use both (if for different tasks).

 

By way of help, let me offer this list for evaluating Bible software programs in general:

 

1. Search engine performance (stability, speed, precision, features, platforms supported)

2. Price (initial and upgrades)

3. Resources available for purchase (quality, number, ease of use, cost, accuracy, support for a specific area of interest)

4. Training (quality, availability, cost)

5. Support (responsiveness, effectiveness, overall attitude)

6. Community (Is it friendly? Helpful? Active? Enthusiastic?)

 

I appreciate the feedback so far and the lively discussion this seemed to have started.  I agree that evaluation of each program is more than just the software itself and I do see the value of Accordance and how it will fit into my toolbox in the future.

 

1.  Search engine performance - So far I think Accordance is faster, but Logos appears to be deeper.  I call it a draw and both are immensely useful.  I'm still somewhat overwhelmed with the results in both so this will be further evaluated over time.

 

2.  Price.  For the resources wanted to start with, Logos was cheaper only because the sales team gave me a large discount.  Accordance may have been able to match the offers, but I decided to choose Logos as my library software.  I had a lot of commentaries already built up over the years due to community pricing so I wanted to keep as much in one library as I could if costs were close.  This is nothing against Accordance.  I think the base packages under $1000 are excellent values for Accordance.  Whereas I felt Logos only met it's full potential starting with the gold package.  I ended up with the platinum package only because it was tied to a very significant discount on other items I wanted like NICOT/NICNT.

 

3.  Resources Available For Purchase.  For my areas of interest, Logos won this category hands down.  Especially when I factored in resources available in the growing Vyrso catalogue.  Quantity of resources has always been Logos' strong point.  Accordance a vast amount of very useful resources, so it's not like Accordance is weak in this area.  It's just Logos is slightly stronger in my novice opinion.

 

4.  Training.  This is an area that I feel is clearly in favor of Accordance.  Logos has training, but it cost big bucks.  Accordance has a lot of free training videos and resources.  

 

5.  Support.  I feel this is a draw.  Both companies have been responsive.

 

6.  Community.  I also fee this is a draw at this point in time.  

 

So all in all, both software have their place in a person's toolbox.  They'll both be in mine.  Accordance will just have to wait a bit longer since I'm looking to purchase a home at the moment which puts any further software investments on hold.

 

Again I appreciate the ongoing discussion and feedback.  I've learned quite a bit since I first started this thread.  It's no longer an Accordance vs Logos question.  It's now a "how can I best use both Logos and Accordance?".  At this point in time my workflow is to utilize Accordance for original language study including Dead Sea Scrolls research and to use Logos for all other Bible Study activities since I plan to have as much as my library in there as possible.

[Unix]

Today I added COPTIC NEW TESTAMENTS as well as Dunn on COLOSSIANS & PHILEMON in the NIGTC -series, to my wishlist.
Last Month I added DICTIONARY OF EPIGRAPHIC HEBREW to Wish List (there was a sale on a couple of more expensive bit more archaeological modules with the texts without morphological tagging as well as a bundled product with the tagging and including the dictionary but I decided all those were too expensive/contained too much I wouldn't use as I was not overly keen on paying for morphological tagging).

I've now got the BENSIRA-C -module I mentioned, it cost me $39.90 during a sale:

I have:

Sirach-Canonical

BENSIRA-C: $49.90
and
LXXG-Sirach

LXXG-SIR: $79.90

... on my Wish List and I bought myself a gift card that covers them if there's a 20% off sale sometime in the future.

Previously edited by Unix, 10 April 2015 - 2:25 AM local time.