Consistent, Accurate Results searching Elizabethan texts?

[Enoch]

In searching the ASV (so I assume same for KJV), I note that searching for "turneth" yields only results for "turneth."  Yet searching for "turnest" yields results for the lexeme turn.

 

Are the statistics resulting from searching Bible texts written in Elizabethan English (KJV, RV, ASV -- any others?) correct?  Does the system rightly recognize Elizabethan verb forms?  Don't forget "-edst"!

[Timothy Jenney]

[chuckle] Enoch,

 

Do you really think there is enough interest in these kinds of searches to warrant to programming time needed to implement them?

[Enoch]

[chuckle] Enoch,

 

Do you really think there is enough interest in these kinds of searches to warrant to programming time needed to implement them?

Timothy,

 

You don't think there is an interest in the KJV???

How many persons do you suppose there are who regard the KJV above all other translations?  

How would that number compare with those who prefer any other given translation?

And don't you know that all real Bible scholars prefer the ASV (1901)?

 

If you don't implement such changes to the search results, should your search results include a disclaimer:

"Accordance search results are not accurate for Elizabethan texts."

 

[chortle]

Edited December 30, 2015 by Enoch

[Joel Brown]

Enoch, our search results are always accurate, but you must be aware of what you are searching for.  The Flex search is designed for modern english, so it does not support Elizabethan forms, nor other languages like German or Spanish.  You can turn Flex search off and get fully accurate results for the words you request.  Similarly, if you decide to leave Flex search on, you can go to the Analysis analytic and see exactly how many times each form was found, fully accurately.

 

What you are describing is not a lack of accuracy, but a feature request to support older English variants in Flex search.

[Fabian]

Oh yes please add german, spanish too

 

Greetings

 

Fabian

[Enoch]

Enoch, our search results are always accurate, but you must be aware of what you are searching for.  The Flex search is designed for modern english, so it does not support Elizabethan forms, nor other languages like German or Spanish.  You can turn Flex search off and get fully accurate results for the words you request.  Similarly, if you decide to leave Flex search on, you can go to the Analysis analytic and see exactly how many times each form was found, fully accurately.

 

What you are describing is not a lack of accuracy, but a feature request to support older English variants in Flex search.

Always.

 

How dost thou explain the fact that

"turneth" yieldeth only results for "turneth."  Yet searching for "turnest" yields divers results as for the lexeme turn ???

 

Forsooth, wilt thou turn thine attention to yon phenomenon?

Edited January 5, 2016 by Enoch

[Joel Brown]

Because "est" is a commonly used suffix in modern english, such as "great-est".

[Michael Miles]

The KJV is not exactly Elizabethan English.  Shakespeare wrote in Elizabethan English and his work does not read like the King James of 1611 or the commonly used current rendition reads.  The way that the KJV reads was the product of the translators in their attempt to sort of mimic the original languages and the end result is a work that reads somewhat oddly different than just about any English work of that era.

 

While I still use the KJV as my English Bible of choice, mainly because I cut my teeth on a Strong's with Hebrew and Greek dictionaries that was keyed to a KJV, it is not without error.  If you read the KJV of Genesis 27:39 you will see that the KJV has Isaac telling Esau the exact opposite of what the Hebrew text says.  Almost all other English translations got this right, but the KJV fell on it's nose here. Go take a look.

[Λύχνις Δαν]

If Acc uses a Porter stemmer perhaps a tweak or two would be all that's needed in the rules.

http://snowball.tartarus.org/texts/earlyenglish.html

 

To Dr. J's point, I agree that treating Early Modern English as a distinct language/dialect and tagging it would be a lot of work for low return even if more accurate. Of course those studying such a period would no doubt find the tools useful I suspect they would mostly be outside the biblical study world.

 

Thx

D

[EricC]

 If you read the KJV of Genesis 27:39 you will see that the KJV has Isaac telling Esau the exact opposite of what the Hebrew text says.  Almost all other English translations got this right, but the KJV fell on it's nose here. Go take a look.

 

Gen. 27:39 (KJV) And Isaac his father answered and said unto him, Behold, thy dwelling shall be the fatness of the earth, and of the dew of heaven from above;

 

John J. Davis in Paradise to Prison, p. 238: "Isaac's promise in verse 39 has been interpreted in two ways, differing on the force of the preposition min: "thy dwelling shall be in the fatness of the earth"; and "thy dwelling shall be away from the fatness of the earth."^{[fn 20: Keil and Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary, 1:278; Kidner, Genesis, p. 156.]} The first interpretation, which is implied in the Authorized Version, would make this essentially the same as the blessing on Jacob in verse 28. The second, however, makes this more of a curse: the Edomites would inhabit a region less fertile than Canaan.^{[fn 21: Nichol, ed., Bible Commentary, 1:378, 379]}"

 

Indeed the same preposition is in Gen. 27:28 and the force there seems to be accepted similarly to the way the KJV renders it in v. 39. I just thought I'd quote this author. I'll let anyone else who wants to continue the discussion do so.

 

Edit: fix typo (proposition > preposition); add my own comment on the same preposition in v. 28.

Edited January 5, 2016 by EricC

[Fabian]

For the hardcore KJV reader: Maybe Accordance can add the 1611 version. http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611-Bible/for the debating KJV onlyism this also would be a great help.

 

Greetings

 

Fabian

[Enoch]

For the hardcore KJV reader: Maybe Accordance can add the 1611 version. http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611-Bible/for the debating KJV onlyism this also would be a great help.

 

Greetings

 

Fabian

Joel:

Sorry to be obtuse, but -est (so far as I know) is a superlative suffix added to adjectives, of which turn is not.  So why a search for turnest should yield results for the verb lexeme turn, is beyond my ken.

 

Fabian,

should Accordance also add a module for the Adulterer's Bible KJV ("Thou shalt commit adultery")? 

 

And Michael,

Yes, IMHO the exact name of the language dialect used in the KJV is not so simple as calling it Elizabethan.  But my point was not directed at fine-tuning the name of the dialect, but getting accurate results when thou art betimes a searching the KJV, RV, & the now sadly neglected ASV.

[Enoch]

Joel:

Sorry to be obtuse, but -est (so far as I know) is a superlative suffix added to adjectives, of which turn is not.  So why a search for turnest should yield results for the verb lexeme turn, is beyond my ken.

 

Fabian,

should Accordance also add a module for the Adulterer's Bible KJV ("Thou shalt commit adultery")? 

 

And Michael,

Yes, IMHO the exact name of the language dialect used in the KJV is not so simple as calling it Elizabethan.  But my point was not directed at fine-tuning the name of the dialect, but getting accurate results when thou art betimes a searching the KJV, RV, & the now sadly neglected ASV.

I might add that as a habitual user of the ASV, I find it inconvenient when searching for a verb not to have all the instances of the verb (in all its inflected forms) come up because of the neglect of some of the forms of the verb in that translation.  Just think how all the millions of ASV users are inconvenienced!

[Michael Miles]

Gen. 27:39 (KJV) And Isaac his father answered and said unto him, Behold, thy dwelling shall be the fatness of the earth, and of the dew of heaven from above;

 

John J. Davis in Paradise to Prison, p. 238: "Isaac's promise in verse 39 has been interpreted in two ways, differing on the force of the preposition min: "thy dwelling shall be in the fatness of the earth"; and "thy dwelling shall be away from the fatness of the earth."^{[fn 20: Keil and Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary, 1:278; Kidner, Genesis, p. 156.]} The first interpretation, which is implied in the Authorized Version, would make this essentially the same as the blessing on Jacob in verse 28. The second, however, makes this more of a curse: the Edomites would inhabit a region less fertile than Canaan.^{[fn 21: Nichol, ed., Bible Commentary, 1:378, 379]}"

 

Indeed the same preposition is in Gen. 27:28 and the force there seems to be accepted similarly to the way the KJV renders it in v. 39. I just thought I'd quote this author. I'll let anyone else who wants to continue the discussion do so.

 

Edit: fix typo (proposition > preposition); add my own comment on the same preposition in v. 28.

Historically speaking, the offspring of Esau today do not inhabit the fat of the land, whereas the offspring of Jacob do.  I'm sorry, but I do not recognize the authority or validity of your citation.  Who is John J. Davis?  Does he oversee and authorize the writings found on the back of cereal boxes?