Randy Cue Posted March 22, 2018 Share Posted March 22, 2018 The title says it all. Could we have the NRSV Apocrypha tagged with Strong numbers? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. Mansfield Posted March 22, 2018 Share Posted March 22, 2018 I’ve requested the same thing before in internal discussions. Evidently, part of the problem has to do with no existing Strong’s numbers (or Goodrick-Kohlenberger numbers either) for certain words in the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical/Intertestamental books (which originate from the LXX). However, I would still like to see some kind of tagging, regardless if a number is present or not. Then the NRSV Apocryphal books could employ crossover highlighting with the Greek LXX text. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ukfraser Posted March 22, 2018 Share Posted March 22, 2018 +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alistair Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 Time to start using Mansfield numbers. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Francis Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 (edited) The bigger problem may be the need to amend or create a unique lexicon. But the missing numbers could easily be done with letters ie. 1345a 1345b etc. As I doubt there ever would be more than one or two words getting inserted into one spot. It is a laudable goal anyhow. I chose 1345 of the top of my head not even knowing what the word is. (g1345. δικαίωμα dikaiōma; from 1344; an equitable deed; by implication, a statute or decision: — judgment, justification, ordinance, righteousness.) Curiosity got the better of me. From what I can tell it appears <ἱλαρόω hilaroō gladden; brighten> is only used in the LXX and not the NT. Liddell and Scott Is old enough definitions could easily start from there in a modified lexicon (which is where the definition for ἱλαρόω is taken from). I am not saying it is to be plagiarised just that no need to worry about citing too much a work needing to get legal permission since it is out of copyright although I realize newer updated editions exist. -dan Edited March 23, 2018 by Daniel Francis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Bennett Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 The bigger problem may be the need to amend or create a unique lexicon. But the missing numbers could easily be done with letters ie. 1345a 1345b etc. As I doubt there ever would be more than one or two words getting inserted into one spot. It is a laudable goal anyhow. I chose 1345 of the top of my head not even knowing what the word is. (g1345. δικαίωμα dikaiōma; from 1344; an equitable deed; by implication, a statute or decision: — judgment, justification, ordinance, righteousness.) Curiosity got the better of me. From what I can tell it appears <ἱλαρόω hilaroō gladden; brighten> is only used in the LXX and not the NT. Liddell and Scott Is old enough definitions could easily start from there in a modified lexicon (which is where the definition for ἱλαρόω is taken from). I am not saying it is to be plagiarised just that no need to worry about citing too much a work needing to get legal permission since it is out of copyright although I realize newer updated editions exist. -dan I've addressed this a number of times over the years, and Rick's answer points to the major issue, which is separate from a lexicon. But Dan's point is also something else that would need to be addressed, but is much easier to accomplish. If you're curious to get an idea of the scope of this work, you can replicate the search I just did to refresh my memory. Tab 1: UBS5 (or NA28, doesn't matter) Search for Words > *? Tab 2: LXX1, Custom Range defined as Judith, Tobit, 1Macc-4Macc, Ps 151, Odes, Wisdom, Sirach, Sol, Bar, LetterJ, Sus, Bel.* Search for: *@ -[HITS UBS5 Greek NT (Sigla)] <AND> [RANGE "Apocrypha Tagging"]. Analysis: Number of Different forms: 3,647** * This range does not take into account Greek Esther (just lazy on my part to define the custom range), nor parallel texts in LXX2. ** This search does not take into account variants in spelling. I can't recall how many examples there are without further analysis, but let's just say it's 1,000 as an extreme example. Notes: There are 5,421 forms in the UBS5. There are 6,796 in this custom range in LXX1. Obviously there isn't a 1:1 ratio of Greek words to English words tagged in NRSV, but it shows you just the Apocrypha is much larger than the entire GNT. While it is certainly possible to amend the Strong's system with an alphabetic suffix (we've already done this for the GNT), this example shows there are over 2,500 words that would need to be added. There are also rather complex textual difficulties in the tagging process. Not all books (or portions thereof) in the Apocrypha have a Greek vorlage (source); tagging these according to Rahlf's is not an accurate representation of the translation. Not all books follow Rahlf's (some Göttingen). Not all books follow one version of that book in the LXX. In Tobit for example the English translation in the NRSV takes into account the parallel versions in Rahlf's. We do not have access to translator's notes for the NRSV. This is the same for all English translations we have tagged, but the Apocrypha is much more complicated. The "Note to the Reader" contained in the introduction to the NRSV helps, but does not answer more specific questions on passages. I'd love to have some form of a tagged Apocrypha in the NRSV. I think it would be helpful, and well-received. However, the Strong's system is totally inadequate for this type of tagging, and would possibly be so cumbersome as to hinder productive study. There are ways to solve this, but they would require programming not currently implemented in Accordance. In addition, due to the scope of the project it would require a significant amount of time and competent people to complete. I'm not saying it won't ever happen because we've undertaken much more difficult projects, but it is not currently a priority. Thanks for the feedback and requests. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ukfraser Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 (edited) However, the Strong's system is totally inadequate for this type of tagging, and would possibly be so cumbersome as to hinder productive study.Is g/k any better? Or do you think as study has come on in the last few decades we will see the evolution of a new system with all the inherent challenges. Edited March 23, 2018 by ukfraser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Bennett Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 Is g/k any better? No, because we're still talking about words unique to the LXX regardless of the key number system employed. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Λύχνις Δαν Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 I was about to start trying to do those searches to see how bad the problem was. This sounds like basic scholarly work of constructing the mappings (key numbers) needs to be taken up before it can be coded. I haven't checked about but people must have at least glanced sideways at this issue before now. Rick B, I'm interested in your comment "the Strong's system is totally inadequate for this type of tagging". Is there a systemic shortcoming here you are talking about or do you just mean that it does not have numbers assigned for the LXX lexemes ? I had wondered if simply tagging the Apocrypha with what tags exist would at least be a start and might be enough for a rough cross-highlight kind of feature. But if there are issues such as the lexemes really don't mean the same thing in the use in the LXX vs NT and thus more likely to give rise to confusion then that would be bad. The question really is, can you do the Apocrypha alone or do you really need to come up with a system for the entire LXX and then do the Apocrypha, albeit perhaps as a first partial implementation of the LXX tagging, rather than waiting for the entire LXX tagging set to be available. If so then there is a lot more work required. Thx D 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Francis Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 This is something I want, It is for me personally something I would pay to upgrade too (maybe many others wouldn't). The need for this for me is less due to the fact that I have ties to the greek in Verbum, it feels slightly frustrating due to the fact that when I think of language study I think of Accordance and yet those occasional times I want to do word study in the Apocrypha I need to head over to Verbum. -dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Λύχνις Δαν Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 Does Verbum have a solution for this Dan ? Thx D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Francis Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 Yes FL in Logos/Verbum has tied it in but it use to be you had to purchase it and have already a certain copy of the LXX in your library. Now I cannot find the info on exactly how it is done... My best guess is you have to own the NRSV and have the right dataset packaged purchased to use it calling them would let you know for certain. When it was released I do remember it was not cheap option. But it was something I wanted. If you call them I am sure they can tell you how you can have it but I am not seeing a dedicated product like they use to sell. -dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Λύχνις Δαν Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 (edited) Ok, so they did the work themselves, no wonder if cost a bit, but didn't publish a set a set of keys. The may not even have done it with key numbers, given that you need a specific LXX module. If keys were used I'd probably prefer to see a published set of key numbers so various resources could be built from it by various vendors, as occurred with Strongs and G/K. But that said I don't know how many would use an LXX set, and it's a lot of work, though probably more would for the Apocrypha. Thx D Edited March 23, 2018 by דָנִיאֶל Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Francis Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 (edited) No there are no key numbers sorry If I misunderstood what you were asking... English-Greek Reverse Interlinear of the NRSV Apocryphal Texts to complete Reverse Interlinear tagging: both the New Revised Standard Versionand the Septuagint with Logos Morphology are prerequisite resources for its use. Are the items and still for sale that make that possible... So you are looking at Over $150 to make this happen. -dan Edited March 23, 2018 by Daniel Francis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Λύχνις Δαν Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 No you didn't misunderstand. I was just interested that someone had done it. Key numbers are not actually required for cross-highlighting in general but they can be used for it and Acc does it that way. It has some other advantages too depending upon the language skills of the user. That said, whenever I see something like this where a proprietary solution has been implemented it makes me wonder about the data set and whether it could be made open and licensed for other consumers so that we don't have keep repeating the same work everywhere. ThxD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Francis Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 (edited) FYI for Accordance's information when I said I would pay, around $50 is more what i would be willing to do with under $30 being my ideal price range. So I realize that the money require to do this may not be there... For the competition to do this they initially charged about $150... although I think catholic RI of catholic edition of the NRSV is more reasonably priced but I am not sure if they require the same as above. -dan Edited March 23, 2018 by Daniel Francis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Bennett Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 The solution is to avoid a numbering system all together (which is what I was alluding to). Yes, it's been done, and we have been aware of it for a while. It's something we'd like to do, and probably will eventually; the timing just has not been right with other priorities. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Francis Posted March 24, 2018 Share Posted March 24, 2018 (edited) Thanks for killing my dreams of Mansfield numbers.... Edited March 24, 2018 by Daniel Francis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. Mansfield Posted March 24, 2018 Share Posted March 24, 2018 Thanks for killing my dreams of Mansfield numbers.... -dan You’d’ve been disappointed. I’ve never been good with numbers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fabian Posted March 24, 2018 Share Posted March 24, 2018 Why not work with the publisher from the G/K to expand the numbering system? I wrote some similar post some years before. Just do it! Both would have a profit. In the meantime you can tag the LXX with the existing numbers! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alistair Posted March 24, 2018 Share Posted March 24, 2018 Is g/k any better? Or do you think as study has come on in the last few decades we will see the evolution of a new system with all the inherent challenges. Frankly I think it is time Strong's numbers got a decent burial. They have been surpassed and outclassed by GK numbers, IMHO. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alistair Posted March 24, 2018 Share Posted March 24, 2018 Why not work with the publisher from the G/K to expand the numbering system? I wrote some similar post some years before. Just do it! Both would have a profit. In the meantime you can tag the LXX with the existing numbers! I remember reading how G & K used Accordance to generate their Concordance with GK numbers, so I see no technological hurdle to creating a new set of numbers for the LXX or other texts. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fabian Posted March 24, 2018 Share Posted March 24, 2018 I remember reading how G & K used Accordance to generate their Concordance with GK numbers, so I see no technological hurdle to creating a new set of numbers for the LXX or other texts. Thats why I don't understand it takes so long. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Helen Brown Posted March 24, 2018 Share Posted March 24, 2018 G & K's work on the NIV certainly predates their involvement with Accordance. The software certainly helped them with the enhanced phrase tagging on the NIV11, but their number system was developed much earlier for a print concordance. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Bennett Posted March 26, 2018 Share Posted March 26, 2018 Thats why I don't understand it takes so long. The GK numbers themselves (list of numbers and lexical forms) are free to use (see for example the Leonberger Bibel). However, this has nothing to do with the complexities of this potential project. The list of Greek words in the GK system are still based on the GNT (more specifically the NIV's version thereof). We appreciate the feedback, but until we make the decision to invest in this, further speculation on what needs to be done is not really helpful. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.c3123c857d1029f98e39c9394adc358d.png)
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now