PDA

View Full Version : Lost in upgrade: BDBLEX (Whitaker)?



David Kummerow
06-12-2006, 03:13 AM
I'm wondering if anyone else has noticed that version 7 is missing something that version 6 had: Whitaker's Revised BDB (BDBLEX). Now, I could simply be wrong, but I cannot see either how to install it or mentioned in the help files (as in version 6).

If this is the case, how might I get the version 6 files to be recognised under version 7 so that I may use this lexicon?

Thanks,
David Kummerow.

Mark Eddy
06-13-2006, 06:41 PM
You are correct. Whittaker's abridged BDB does not exist in BW7. I don't know all the reasons for leaving it out, but there were many typos in it, and since BW7 contains the full BDB (much corrected from the BDB in BW6), I guess the decision was made not to take the time that would have been needed to correct the abridged BDB also. Since Whittaker's contained no information that cannot be found in the full BDB, BW7 users are losing nothing, except perhaps a little time to scroll through the longer entries in full BDB.
I think that it would take some programming changes in various places for BW7 to recognize the Whittaker's BDB files from BW6 so that they could be read in the Lexicon Browser and the Word Analysis and Resource Summary windows.
I initially missed the abridged BDB in BW7 (for a couple days), since I liked its conciseness. But I think you'll quickly get used to using the full BDB, as I did. And the corrections are truly a vast improvement over what BW6 had to offer in either version of BDB.
Mark Eddy

David Kummerow
06-13-2006, 07:07 PM
Thanks Mark for the reply. I now know that it's not just me installing something incorrectly.

I'm more than comfortable with full BDB, but for cutting-and-pasting basic "word and definition" into Word for my Hebrew class stuff, Whitaker I found to be the best: you can copy "word and definition" without intervening verse references etc.

I simply can't believe that a lexicon from a pervious version hasn't been carried forward. And without any mention of this to users. Might it be an oversight and it will be released soon? I do hope so!

A further problem is that you can't have a previous version of BW installed alongside the current version. So if I want to use the lexicon for some class preparation, I'll have to have a designated "BW 6" machine. This is rediculous. Hopefully Whitaker will make a "return" to BW.

David Kummerow.

Adelphos
06-13-2006, 07:31 PM
Hopefully Whitaker will make a "return" to BW.

Hear! hear!

Dale A. Brueggemann
06-14-2006, 04:59 AM
Whittaker's abridged BDB does not exist in BW7.... I liked its conciseness.

And now we have Holladay for conciseness.

David Kummerow
06-14-2006, 05:36 AM
And now we have Holladay for conciseness.

But not quite like in the same way Whitaker was. Holladay gives the word or root, then all of its various forms, then definition; Whitaker gave the word or root then definition. Holladay, therefore, is more clumsy for simple cutting-and-pasting of "word and definition", ie it would be at least a two-stage process, firstly to grab the word and then return to secondly grab the definition.

SCSaunders
06-14-2006, 11:22 AM
I appreciate what BDB’s “mini-me” provided, but I think Holladay does a better job. One-two cutting and pasting may be hard work; but that’s Paradise compared to the Sheol of the old days. We had to neanderthal through our study time on Smith Coronas. To work those solid metal QWERTY keys, you had to grow some knuckles.

Adelphos
06-14-2006, 11:49 AM
Of course, some people will prefer Holladay and some Whitaker. It's like an interface, i.e., it's largely a matter of preference. Actually, I've pretty much gotten used to Hollady now so that I prefer it over Whitaker.

However, I think David's main point is that since Whitaker existed in the previous versions, it would be very simple to merely add it back in to version 7.

No one would be forced to use it, but for those who prefer it, it would be there. Nor would it be in the way for anyone who didn't want to use it, especially with the option to include/exclude lexicons in the Analysis window.

Unless I am very much mistaken, from a programming standpoint it would be child's play to add it back in, even if the links are not electrified as in the other lexicons.

You can't go around spoiling people with toys and then suddenly take them away. Just ask Mattel. :rolleyes:

David Kummerow
06-14-2006, 05:56 PM
...However, I think David's main point is that since Whitaker existed in the previous versions, it would be very simple to merely add it back in to version 7....

You can't go around spoiling people with toys and then suddenly take them away. Just ask Mattel. :rolleyes:
Exactly. When BW 7 was released, there was all the promotion about what was "new" in the new version, often highlighted in blue to standout. But nothing was said to my knowledge about what had been "removed" from the previous version. Could I be forgiven for thinking that all previous lexicons would carry through from one version to the next in the absence of an explicit statement to the contrary by the programmers? If a Greek lexicon suddenly dropped out from version 6 to 7, there'd be an uprour I'd expect.

David Kummerow
06-14-2006, 07:12 PM
And not to mention I feel slightly ripped off. I paid for the use of the Whitaker lexicon in a previous version and now I can't use it. I upgraded from 6 expecting the same resources in 7 not minus anything. I do hope this is not a trend that will continue...

Adelphos
06-14-2006, 09:48 PM
I paid for the use of the Whitaker lexicon in a previous version and now I can't use it.

Wow. Are you sure about that? I don't ever remember paying extra for Whitaker, but I didn't come in until version 3, so perhaps it was earlier than that?

I see your point though, and the term "concise" can be very relative.

For example, hover over awb in Holliday and you get about a gazillion forms before you get to the definition. There are a lot of examples like this.

At any rate, I hope for your students' sake that you correct whatever lexicon you use whenever appropriate. :rolleyes:

David Kummerow
06-15-2006, 04:13 AM
Wow. Are you sure about that? I don't ever remember paying extra for Whitaker, but I didn't come in until version 3, so perhaps it was earlier than that?
I wasn't meaning that it was extra, but that it came bundled in version 5 when I bought that, and then again when I upgraded for version 6. Now that resource which was included before is gone. I purchased the version 6 upgrade expecting at least the same versions and lexicons, which was the case. I also naďvely expected this to be the case with version 7 unfortunately.


At any rate, I hope for your students' sake that you correct whatever lexicon you use whenever appropriate. :rolleyes:
For sure. And that's also the case with the grammars---they need correcting at times too!

SCSaunders
06-15-2006, 12:38 PM
David,

“Po-tay-to,” “Po-taw-to,” Whitaker, Hollady, I’m glad you have a preference and can state your case as to why. Not a problem that I can see. In fact, part of the reason why I check this forum is to learn from other peoples’ preferences, because they might improve how I can use BW7.

So, a statement and a question. Statement – I did check (in fact rechecked before posting this) BW7’s advertisement materials and in their “Full Contents” section, under “Lexical-Grammatical References” Whittaker is not mentioned. I don’t see the programmers pulling a fast one; but, you’re entitle to your own conclusion.

Question – When you asked the BW7 staff about this what was their answer? They’ve always been responsive to my questions. I’m hoping you’re going to tell me that you gave the programmers a chance to state their case before starting this thread.

Scott

David Kummerow
06-15-2006, 08:03 PM
So, a statement and a question. Statement – I did check (in fact rechecked before posting this) BW7’s advertisement materials and in their “Full Contents” section, under “Lexical-Grammatical References” Whittaker is not mentioned. I don’t see the programmers pulling a fast one; but, you’re entitle to your own conclusion.
You are correct. But is only now when I reread the contents that I notice such an omission. When I read the contents of version 7 before purchase, I was looking for what was new, not what had been removed. My expectation was that versions and lexicons carried through from one version to the next. However, I have been proved wrong in this assumption unfortunately.


Question – When you asked the BW7 staff about this what was their answer? They’ve always been responsive to my questions. I’m hoping you’re going to tell me that you gave the programmers a chance to state their case before starting this thread.
They said much the same as you: Whitaker is not mentioned in the BW 7 contents. They also said that the beta testers were asked about Whitaker and they replied that they no longer used it when full BDB came along. Finally, they said that they will implement a policy whereby users will be notified of a database's removal on the forums.

However, such answers do not get around my problem of wanting to use Whitaker in version 7. Support also informed me that version 6 can be installed alongside version 7 on the same machine, which was news to me. So that is the way I will go. However, I am not pleased with the harddrive space that this will use on my laptop when this could be rectified by releasing Whitaker for version 7. Or why can't we import the version 6 files for use in version 7?

Regards,
David.

Adelphos
06-15-2006, 08:23 PM
You are correct. But is only now when I reread the contents that I notice such an omission...

For what it's worth, I'm with you on this one. I'd like to see Whitaker back in, but it probably ain't gonna happen. Now then, before reading further...

DISCLAIMER

Prepare yourself; make up your mind not to try to reach through your monitor and strangle me; perphaps remove all breakables from the room before you read any further.

Ready?

Here goes...

If you select -- careful now; restrain your anger -- but if you right click in the Analysis window, and under default Hebrew lexicon, if you choose -- now just calm down -- but if you choose...

Strong's Abridged BDB --

Tada!!!

Take a breath. Take a sip of tea, or whatever (personally, I live on apple juice), but just relax.

Now then, Strong's DOES give you the Hebrew word in Hebrew and then immediately follows with the definition.

I realize that most people scoff at Strong's, but if you give it a look it may suit your needs, as it does provide a whole lot of definitions for a given word.

And since you understand that lexicons need correction anyway (the modern ones moreso than the older ones, IMO), you can do the same with Strong's whenever the need arises.

I wonder if Strong's wouldn't suit your needs just as easily as Whitaker?

Michael Hanel
06-15-2006, 08:56 PM
They said much the same as you: Whitaker is not mentioned in the BW 7 contents. They also said that the beta testers were asked about Whitaker and they replied that they no longer used it when full BDB came along. Finally, they said that they will implement a policy whereby users will be notified of a database's removal on the forums.

I guess if that's their answer, that's their answer. The bottom line is you've done all you can. You can encourage other users to request Whitaker if it was something they used, but to say much more against BW is abusing the forums.

I honestly didn't even notice Whitaker wasn't in BW7 until you said something. I personally never used it and the additions to the program more than amply covered this omission now that I know of it. I almost always use HALOT and if I didn't use that I would probably use Holladay or the full BDB.

My past experience has shown if there is enough support for something and it is feasible, BW programmers are responsive, but they're almost never responsive to the type of messages that this could quickly turn into.

David Kummerow
06-15-2006, 09:55 PM
@Adelphos
Thanks, Scott, for the reply. It would seem that I need to choose another lexicon for what I used to use Whitaker for. Perhaps Strongs; perhaps Holladay; maybe both. Strongs is organsied a little differently to Whitaker in that the Hebrew word is given on one line and then on the line below the definition is given. The cut-and-paste into Word has to be modified for my liking to bring the word and definition onto the same line---but this is really not that big of a deal in that simply backspace needs to be pressed.

I guess I'm mostly unhappy that a lexicon I did use has been removed without us really being made aware of it besides having to compare the contexts list of 6 with that of 7. I sincerely thought that once versions and lexicons appeared in the program they were there to stay. The marketing is always on about what's new, but as someone upgrading now I know that I need to be on the lookout for what's different/removed also.

That's all I'm going to say now.

@Michael
It would seem, though, that my desire to have Whitaker reinstated will not be met as it would seem that the majority of users have no use for it. I guess I could only raise it as a matter of concern and debate. But then this is always going to be the case with matters Hebrew. For example, we are unlikely to have the epigraphic Hebrew texts in BW for some time due to lack of demand, but BW has Greek texts of Josephus and Philo; see:

http://www.bibleworks.com/forums/showthread.php?t=993
http://www.bibleworks.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1207

Thanks for your concern about the content of this thread. I shall say no more.

David Kummerow.

Michael Hanel
06-15-2006, 10:48 PM
@Michael
It would seem, though, that my desire to have Whitaker reinstated will not be met as it would seem that the majority of users have no use for it. I guess I could only raise it as a matter of concern and debate. But then this is always going to be the case with matters Hebrew. For example, we are unlikely to have the epigraphic Hebrew texts in BW for some time due to lack of demand, but BW has Greek texts of Josephus and Philo; see:

http://www.bibleworks.com/forums/showthread.php?t=993
http://www.bibleworks.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1207

Thanks for your concern about the content of this thread. I shall say no more.

David Kummerow.
That's very true. The far majority of my work is in Greek, so I have it pretty easy (even though there are always more resources I'd like available too), but even in the other Bible programs out there, there is a monstrous inequality between Hebrew and Greek resources. I'm sorry not as many resources are out there in your field, but when I've heard that it costs several thousands of dollars to convert one resource from book into text (without any more formatting) I do realize that these guys can't make stuff that isn't going to be supported.

For what it's worth once the modules promised for BW7 are all out, I think more opportunities will open up, but that requires patience.....

SCSaunders
06-16-2006, 08:40 AM
David,

Thanks for the reply. Lately, I've seen the forum used to make requests to which the programmers have replied. Hopefully, they’ll do the same for yours.

For me, the fact that you gave the programmers first dibs in answering your question is a good thing.

I personally can’t get too worked up for all the folks that missed it from the full list; but hey, this has been run to ground.

Scott

.

MBushell
06-16-2006, 08:56 PM
Hi Guys,

There were a lot of issues involved in removing Whittaker's BDB. One involved licensing issues that I can't talk about here. Another has to do with the fact, as already mentioned, that it was buggy and we wanted to invest limited time in improving the full BDB. The Whittaker BDB was added originally ONLY because we didn't have the full BDB and it was the best we could do until we were able to afford to have the full edition scanned. Our conclusion was that with the full BDB it was no longer needed. I still feel that way, though I understand some people not liking the decision.

As we continue to develop BibleWorks we have to have the liberty to make decisions about what to add and what to remove. These decisions are not made to "rip" anyone off, but to improve the program. We are always at liberty to remove one item and replace it with what we believe to be a better solution. Of course not everyone will agree with our decisions, but I would hope that our users would give us the benefit of the doubt and at least believe that we did what we thought was best for the most number of people. We've received a fair amount of grief for removing redundancy in version 7 but I still believe most of the decisions that we made were the right ones. Sorry if some of you don't agree.

It seems to be true that no matter what we add, change, or remove, someone is going to be upset. It don't think we have ever made a single change that was praised by some and hated by others. People don't like change. But I guess if we didn't change anything, some people would be upset too :-) Just let me remind everyone that patience is a gift of the Spirit. So is thankfulness. For our part, we are thankful for our users. And we hope our users are thankful for our labors, even when they stress theor patience.

As far as being ripped off. Do try to keep in mind all the new stuff, which continues by the way.

Mike

David Kummerow
06-17-2006, 03:08 AM
Hi Michael,

Thanks for responding.

I'm sorry. I overstated things when I said I felt a bit ripped off. I am indeed very thankful for your software and the hard work over many years to make it what it is today.

I acknowledge that you reserve the right to make changes as you see fit to the program. I does not surprise me that things change; everything does. However, what has caught me by surprise is not changes at the level of the interface etc, but at the level of resources. My assumption has been that versions and lexicons are added to the package---not removed. My assumption and expectation has been proved wrong and I stand corrected. You reserve the right to give and to take. It's up to me to read the contents more carefully.

Sincerely,
David Kummerow.

MBushell
06-17-2006, 01:30 PM
David,

There is one thing you can try. I can't guarantee that it will work the first time without tweaking. Copy the following files from your BW6 databases directory to the BW7 databases directory:

fbdb.slx
fbdbdic.dbx
fbdbdicc.dbx
fbdbdicr.dbx
fbdbdicv.dbx
fbdblex.dbx

This may or may not work. I believe the old Whittaker code is still in the program. Please, however, do not distribute these files to any 7.0 users who have not upgraded from 6, as we don't have permission for that. If this causes program instability just remove the above files.

Let me know if this causes problems and we'll try to work around them. Keep in mind though that this database is no longer supported and there won't be any fixes. One other caveat is this:

For 7.0 we hand corrected the links between the WTT/WTM and the Hebrew lexicons, word by word and verse by verse. It was a very large task and an expensive one. The result was a huge leap in the reliability of the Analysis Window definitions for Hebrew. One reason that we did not include Whittaker (in addition to the ones mentioned already) is that it would have taken even more time to run this lexicon through that process. The bottom line is that there will be more bad definitions in the AW if you make Whittaker your default.

Improving BibleWorks is always a two step forward one step back process. I think it's probably always that way with complex programs. When we implement a new feature it is not always possible to make it compatible with old features and databases, at least not without investing large amounts of time and money. We have to weigh a lot of considerations in order to produce a program that is always improving but still affordable. We try to please as many people as possble, but we can never make everyone happy.

Mike

David Kummerow
06-18-2006, 07:14 AM
Hi Mike,

Thank you for taking the time to think about the issue and how it may still be possible to use the lexicon in the current version. I understand more now the decision to leave Whittaker behind.

So far, I have been unable to get the possible solution to work. It could be that while I have copied the .dbx files, I have not been able to copy the .slx file as I cannot locate it. Whittaker is working in version 6 without the file. Would reinstalling put the file back?

Thanks for your time and assistance,

David.

Mark Eddy
06-19-2006, 12:20 PM
If I remember correctly, the fbdb files in 6.0 were for the FULL BDB (as they are in 7.0), not for the abbridged Whitakers' BDB. So copying over the fbdb files from 6.0 to 7.0 might actually mess up your full BDB in 7.0. I forget what file abbreviation was used for the Whitaker's BDB, but I'm pretty sure that fbdb isn't what you want.
Mark Eddy