Mouseover highlighting in Hebrew

[Λύχνις Δαν]

Hi ya,

 

  Acc 11.0.7

  Mac 10.10.4

 

  When I mouse over a Hebrew word the highlight is just for one element of the word, which seems fine, given other how it appears to work in Hebrew. But if its the left most portion of the word (the end) then the following space is included in the highlight. This does not occur in Greek and seems to be a bug, though minor to be sure.

 

  Another issue. In Gen 1:12 we have : לְמִינֵ֑הוּ

 

  This word (for want of a better term) involves three components. Only the right most two highlight on mouseover. The third הוּ  does not even though mouse over does produce ID content for it. Is this a bug ? It seems to happen for all such suffixes so may be intentional though I don't quite understand why.

 

 

Thx

D

 

[Susan]

I had never used mouseover highlighting, but this prompted me to check it out and observe the various idiosyncrasies alone with you.

 

Regarding the second issue: In addition to pronominal suffixes, this is true for the directional hey.  (The prefixed article, vav, and prepositions do highlight + ID but don’t cross-highlight in translation even when there are clear English equivalents.)

 

Regarding the first: The highlight also includes the sof pasuq with the last word of the verse, which is odd. Equally odd (and equally inconsequential), the English mouseovers (I’m looking at ESV) inconsistently include the space before the word. But as you said, the Greek seems cleaner.

[Λύχνις Δαν]

The cross-highlighting is algorithmic and somewhat involved to get exactly right is my understanding and it is known not to cross highlight 100% accurately. It gets occasional tweaks to handle bugs. Someone from Acc would have to comment but I think it is governed by tagging data.

 

I guess I'd not noticed the English but I see your point.

 

The sof pasuq is interesting. There is also a thin vertical line just off the end of some words and the mouse over highlights them also. I don't know what these lines are called though :   וַיְהִ֣י ׀ כִּזְרֹ֣חַ

 

You can see it in the middle the words above which I got from the beginning of Jonah 4:8.

 

This all started from my desire to understand why we have a literal mode for Hebrew but not Greek. Still working on that.

 

Tx

D

[Susan]

That’s a paseq. (See also, a somewhat more compact explanation.) I agree that it doesn’t make much sense to include them in the highlight.

 

Yeah, I imagine getting “100% accurate” cross-highlighting would be about as plausible as a “100% accurate” interlinear, which is to say, not. 

What do you mean by “a literal mode”?  I’m not familiar with that. 

[Λύχνις Δαν]

Thanx for that. I can't figure out how to search for paseq - I assumed it was possible, some sort of character search I guess. Ah ok got it - . shift-option--

 

Literal search. Ok in English you have search options for Exact and Flex search which search for the exact or grammatical variants -plurals, possessives etc - of the entered string. In Hebrew the options are Grammatical and Literal. Literal is explained here : http://accordancefiles2.com/helpfiles/OSX11/Default.htm#topics/06_braa/literal_heb_search.htm?Highlight=literal%20search. In Greek you don't really appear to have a choice - The Flex and Exact appear but are greyed out. I thought they applied but perhaps only in certain cases - hmmm....

 

What's interesting is that if your double/triple click on a word the highlighting is such that it includes the bits that are excluded in the mouseover highlight (and oddly excludes the characters we've been discussing). If you then want to search a text with that content you will be including prefixes and suffixes. Literal search seems to handle this case. It basically allows you to search for text that is not a lemma. What I don't yet understand is Greek and Hebrew aren't handled in the same way. Anyhow I need to look at it more before I can even form a sensible question on this.

 

Thx

D

Edited August 2, 2015 by Daniel Semler

[Helen Brown]

The Literal search for Hebrew (not needed in Greek) was added recently to allow for searches that do not separate the prefixes and suffixes. As you know, accurate Grammatical searches allow and require you to separate them. The database itself separates them, and Accordance does so automatically when you amplify or mouseover. This is why you cannot simply copy and paste text and expect to do a Grammatical search, even inside quotes to indicate inflected forms. The Literal search lets you do that. It's especially useful for amplifying from or pasting text from an untagged source that isn't separated into prefix-word-suffix. It's not perfect but it usually finds your word or string, even where there are additional prefixes not included in your search expression.

[Ken Simpson]

This is why you cannot simply copy and paste text and expect to do a Grammatical search, even inside quotes to indicate inflected forms. 

But you can do that in Greek, which is why a literal search option is not needed.

[Λύχνις Δαν]

The Literal search for Hebrew (not needed in Greek) was added recently to allow for searches that do not separate the prefixes and suffixes. As you know, accurate Grammatical searches allow and require you to separate them. The database itself separates them, and Accordance does so automatically when you amplify or mouseover. This is why you cannot simply copy and paste text and expect to do a Grammatical search, even inside quotes to indicate inflected forms. The Literal search lets you do that. It's especially useful for amplifying from or pasting text from an untagged source that isn't separated into prefix-word-suffix. It's not perfect but it usually finds your word or string, even where there are additional prefixes not included in your search expression.

 

I'm clearly missing something. If I take a fully inflected Greek form from somewhere or type it in to search in a text Accordance say ἐπιγινώσκει in a NA GNT tab, I am presented with a popup box to select the lemma from. If I quote them I can search for the particular inflected form. This seems to be one thing that prefixes and suffixes may be used for in Hebrew, inflecting stems, and that would seem to be support by the use of " just as for Greek. But there seems to be a high degree of clitization in Hebrew where articles and conjunctions are abutted directly to other words. Apart from crasis (and it could be argued that crasis isn't clitization - as the words involved can and do standalone) this doesn't seem to happen in Greek. Is this what the literal search permits, the finding of such abutted forms that correctly speaking are not inflections ?

 

Thx

D

[Helen Brown]

Exactly.

[Λύχνις Δαν]

Oh cool - many thanx Helen.

 

thx

D

Edited August 3, 2015 by Daniel Semler