PDA

View Full Version : WTM update?



David Kummerow
02-26-2008, 07:08 PM
WTM in BW is currently at v.4.4.

In correspondence with Kirk Lowery from the J. Alan Groves Center for Advanced Biblical Research in December last year regarding a few errors I'd come across, he mentioned that the current release of the database was 4.8, July 2007.

Is this going to made available in BW any time soon?

Thanks,
David Kummerow.

David Kummerow
03-02-2008, 03:08 AM
Bump!

Anybody?

David Kummerow
03-02-2008, 03:43 PM
No, I thought I'd post here as others may be interested in knowing that the database is currently a little out-of-date and when it may be updated to the current release.

I'll wait another couple of days and see if there is a response before I send an email.

Regards,
David Kummerow.

Philip Brown
03-02-2008, 09:19 PM
It would be nice to have 4.8, but 4.9 is almost done and 4.10 will probably be released this summer, so ... it's hard to say which version should trigger another upgrade in BW. I know Mike Bushell is tuned-in to this issue, but he has a lot of other issues on his plate as well.

David Kummerow
03-02-2008, 10:50 PM
Hmmm. Difficult to judge.

Ideally I'd like to see 4.8 since it's been complete for over half a year. Include 4.9 when it's available, 4.10 when it's available, and so on. That way at any given time a user can be confident that search results etc. on the database represent the most accurate to date.

Regards,
David Kummerow.

Adelphos
03-03-2008, 12:44 PM
Ideally I'd like to see 4.8 since it's been complete for over half a year. Include 4.9 when it's available, 4.10 when it's available, and so on. That way at any given time a user can be confident that search results etc. on the database represent the most accurate to date.

Unless there's a compelling reason not to release each update as it becomes available, I have to very much agree with David.

Especially with those who might be writing technical papers or doing doctoral work, as I believe some BW users are, and while there may be a small likelyhood of such a thing every happening, it could nevertheless prove embarrasing to cite a WTT entry from an earlier version that had been modified in the latest version.

David Kummerow
03-04-2008, 08:56 PM
Especially with those who might be writing technical papers or doing doctoral work, as I believe some BW users are, and while there may be a small likelyhood of such a thing every happening, it could nevertheless prove embarrasing to cite a WTT entry from an earlier version that had been modified in the latest version.
Yes, exactly my predicament. Knowing a few errors in 4.4, search results in my area of research are not entirely accurate even if the results may be called "almost accurate". But upgrading to 4.8 would fix the issue for me and I'm sure everyone would appreciate knowing they're using the latest update.

Regards,
David Kummerow.

Philip Brown
03-05-2008, 10:50 AM
Westminster will provide a copy of the latest release to those who need it for research. For example, while working on A Reader's Hebrew Bible, I received a copy of 4.6 and 4.8. If you have a real need, email Stephen Salisbury or Kirk Lowery at Westminster and they will be able to provide you with the license agreement (which is free) and the information you need.

MBushell
03-05-2008, 03:12 PM
Hi David,

There are two reasons why we have not release WTM 4.8 yet. One is time. We are swamped. The other is that Westminster requires us to pay an additional royalty for every copy of the updated morphology that we distribute. We have no way to track that when it is distributed via free download. We have tried to work out a better mechanism with Westminster but to no avail. So we are pretty much shut up to posting WTM updates with major version releases of BibleWorks. Whatever WTM release is current will be distributed with our next major release. I can't tell you when that will be so please don't ask. It's not soon. We have some exciting new projects in the works and they have to mature a bit before we can have a release. If we can work out a better mechanism with Westminster we will release the WTM data earlier.

God bless,
Mike

David Kummerow
03-05-2008, 06:36 PM
Hi Mike,

Thanks indeed for taking the time to reply and explain the situation here. I can now understand why an upgrade has not been released. Via free download, you don't have a way to track usage since someone may be redownloading for whatever reason which would not constitute another copy generating a royalty. You have now way of knowing this or keeping track.

Whether one possible way is to have users log in with their serial number to download such an update so that numbers would be kept accurate? I do hope Westminster might keep working to provide an adeqate solution because an out-of-date database constitues a problem.

@Philip
Thanks for outlining this to me. I will indeed follow this up. Can you tell me if the database they would supply can be utilised in BW itself?

Regards,
David Kummerow.

Philip Brown
03-05-2008, 10:14 PM
@Philip
Thanks for outlining this to me. I will indeed follow this up. Can you tell me if the database they would supply can be utilised in BW itself?


Hi, David,

No, Westminster provides a .txt file that I pulled into Access and created a searchable table from. Unwieldy, but workable if really necessary.

Blessings,

David Kummerow
03-05-2008, 10:36 PM
Hi Philip,

I wonder what it takes to get the TXT file into BW format? Whether Mike can explain anything in this regard?

Thanks,
David Kummerow.

Philip Brown
03-06-2008, 10:20 PM
A fairly serious conversion issue. I'm sure Mike has created an automated conversion process, but I've never heard him talk about it.

Probably the best way would be to take a look at the data yourself and see whether you think you have the time and skills needed to do the conversion.

Mark Eddy
03-08-2008, 09:31 AM
Hi Philip,

I wonder what it takes to get the TXT file into BW format? Whether Mike can explain anything in this regard?

Thanks,
David Kummerow.
In general you can take any .txt file (which has book names and chapter and verse numbers beginning each line) and make it a BibleWorks version by placing the .txt file into your userdb folder, opening the BibleWorks "Tools" "Version Database Compiler" and filling in the sample .ddf file with the appropriate information, including the name and location of your .txt file on the line for "Database raw text file" and hitting "Compile". One warning, if you choose to name your file WTT or WTM (for the morphology), it will overwrite the files shipped with BibleWorks, and you probably would not want to do that. It sounds as if each individual would have to pay Westminster for the .txt file before being allowed to compile it.
Whether the Hebrew files have any extra steps for compiling or not, I do not know. I have compiled numerous Greek .txt files by this method, and they all work perfectly in BibleWorks.
Mark Eddy

Philip Brown
03-08-2008, 10:10 PM
Here's Gen 1:1-5 as it comes from Westminster

gn1:1 B.:/R")$I73YT B.FRF74) ):ELOHI92YM )"71T HA/$.FMA73YIM W:/)"71T HF/)F75REC00
gn1:2 W:/HF/)F81REC HFY:TF71H TO33HW.03 WF/BO80HW. W:/XO73$EK: (AL-P.:N"74Y T:HO92WM W:/R74W.XA ):ELOHI80YM M:RAXE73PET (AL-P.:N"71Y HA/M.F75YIM00
gn1:3 WA/Y.O71)MER ):ELOHI73YM Y:HI74Y )O92WR WA75/Y:HIY-)O75WR00
gn1:4 WA/Y.A94R:) ):ELOHI91YM )ET-HF/)O73WR K.IY-+O92WB WA/Y.AB:D."74L ):ELOHI80YM B."71YN HF/)O73WR W./B"71YN HA/XO75$EK:00
gn1:5 WA/Y.IQ:RF63) ):ELOHI70YM05 LF/)OWR03 YO80WM W:/LA/XO73$EK: QF74RF) LF92Y:LFH WA75/Y:HIY-(E71REB WA75/Y:HIY-BO73QER YO71WM )EXF75D00 P

Here's the BW equivalent:

Gen 1:1 #r,a")h' taew> ~yIm:V'h; tae ~yhi_l{a/ ar"B' tyviareB.
Gen 1:2 ~yIM'(h; ynEP.-l[; tp,x,r;m. ~yhil{a/ x;Wrw> ~Ah+t. ynEP.-l[; %v,xow> Whbow" Whto ht'y>h' #r,a'h'w>
Gen 1:3 rAa)-yhiy>w:) rAa+ yhiy> ~yhil{a/ rm,aYOw:
Gen 1:4 %v,xo)h; !ybeW rAah' !yBe ~yhil{a/ lDEb.Y:w: bAj+-yKi rAah'-ta, ~yhil{a/ ar.Y:w:
Gen 1:5 p dx'(a, ~Ay rq,bo-yhiy>w:) br,[<-yhiy>w:) hl'y>l"+ ar'q" %v,xol;w> ~Ay rAal' ~yhil{a/ ar'q.YIw:

David Kummerow
03-08-2008, 10:26 PM
If it were as simple as building with the Version Database Compiler, perhaps it might be possible for someone to write a program to convert the Westminster TXT file into the TXT file format required by the Version Database Compiler.

But then, BW staff somewhere along the lines have to do this themselves, so they may be able to supply the code (or program) necessary to accomplish this saving someone redoing this.

Regards,
David Kummerow.

SkipB
03-09-2008, 04:44 PM
The sample of text Philip gives from Westminster sure looks like ordinary CCAT. The help file says that Hebrew and Greek text must be in CCAT coding. That sounds like the compiler should make the necessary changes to be turned to "pseudo-ascii" for display that will work with BW display fonts. Preparing the ddf files may be the most arcane part.

here is the same passages exported from BW in CCAT format

SkipB
03-09-2008, 04:45 PM
Gen 1:1 B.:_R")$I73YT B.FRF74) ):ELOHI92YM )"71T HA_$.FMA73YIM W:_)"71T HF_)F75REC
Gen 1:2 W:_HF_)F81REC HFY:TF71H TO33HW.03 WF_BO80HW. W:_XO73$EK: (AL-_P.:N"74Y T:HO92WM W:_R74W.XA ):ELOHI80YM M:RAXE73PET (AL-_P.:N"71Y HA_M.F75YIM
Gen 1:3 WA_Y.O71)MER ):ELOHI73YM Y:HI74Y )O92WR WA75_Y:HIY-_)O75WR

Mark Eddy
03-12-2008, 09:03 AM
I created a bhs.txt file from Skip's 3 verses and verses 4-5 from Philip's first paragraph, changing Philip's book names from gn1 to Gen 1. Then I opened the Version Database Compiler and created a bhs.ddf file. I had to call the book name "hbr" instead of bhs, because BW internally uses BHS for another version. The file compiled perfectly. It displays exactly as does WTT for Gen 1:1-5. The numerals, which make the Hebrew look strange in the .txt files, represent cantilation marks/accents. If you want, I can send my bhs.ddf file, but you can make one of your own in under five minutes.
Mark Eddy

David Kummerow
03-12-2008, 06:15 PM
I got an email back. Despite what Philip said, they do not normally supply the database even for research purposes. Conditions are:

1) cutting edge research that any ordinary Bible software would not serve

2) where the person involved makes a significant "in kind" contribution to improve the database (eg significant numbers of error reports)

I may attempt to convice them that my research is cutting edge, but that's subjective so I don't know how I'll fare.

They provided Gen 1:1 in the form that they supply:

gn1:1,1.1 B.: B.:@Pp
gn1:1,1.2 R")$I73YT R")$IYT@ncfsa
gn1:1,2.1 B.FRF74) BR)_1@vqp3ms
gn1:1,3.1 ):ELOHI92YM ):ELOHIYM@ncmpa
gn1:1,4.1 )"71T )"T_1@Po
gn1:1,5.1 HA HA@Pa
gn1:1,5.2 $.FMA73YIM $FMAYIM@ncmpa
gn1:1,6.1 W: W:@Pc
gn1:1,6.2 )"71T )"T_1@Po
gn1:1,7.1 HF HA@Pa
gn1:1,7.2 )F75REC00 )EREC@ncfsa

This would require some manipulating I think before it would compile into BW using the Version Database Compiler.

Regards,
David Kummerow.

Mark Eddy
03-12-2008, 10:37 PM
Yes, "manipulating" would need to be done on the example you provided (WTM), unless someone (far more computer savvy than I) comes up with a macro which automatically turns "gn1" into "gen 1" the first time, then removes all duplicate verse designations, removes all word position numbers, and combines all entries for each verse onto one line. Then the version database compiler could be used.
The five verses of WTT provided earlier in this thread needed only the "replace all" command to change book abbreviations.
This is an example of 1) why we trust BW to do this for us, and 2) why Michael B. always says something like, "if you really need the book, buy the book, not just an electronic form of it."
Mark Eddy

Philip Brown
03-13-2008, 10:00 AM
Despite what Philip said, they do not normally supply the database even for research purposes.

Sorry about the misinformation. :( FWIW, knowing the publishing you've done on the Hebrew verb system, David, I would expect you to qualify.

David Kummerow
03-13-2008, 05:43 PM
FWIW, knowing the publishing you've done on the Hebrew verb system, David, I would expect you to qualify.

Maybe it'll get me over the line, but we'll have to see. If you're interested, I have another article titled "How can the Form יִקְטֹל be a Preterite, Jussive, and a Future/Imperfective? A Brief Elaboration of the Forms and Functions of the Biblical Hebrew Prefix Verbs" forthcoming in either vol 8 or 9 in the journal Kleine Untersuchungen zur Sprache des Alten Testaments und seiner Umwelt. I can likely send a pdf when it's out if you want.

Regards,
David.

Philip Brown
03-14-2008, 09:49 PM
Please please do send me a pdf!
Thanks.

David Kummerow
05-25-2008, 07:33 AM
Well, in the end the J. Alan Groves Center for Advanced Biblical Research has granted me access to the latest morphological database and supplied me with it. This last week I've successfully been able to write a program which takes their database as input and outputs a text file which is in BW CCAT format so that it may be compiled into BW.

The program may be downloaded here (http://home.exetel.com.au/galapo/BibleWorks/MorphToLCM.rar). I've chosen to name the version the LCM (for Leningrad Codex Morphology). The conversion is not that fast (takes a couple of hours), but it is great being able to use it in BW!

A companion program may be downloaded here (http://home.exetel.com.au/galapo/BibleWorks/WLCtoBW_LCT.rar), which takes the electronic Westminster Leningrad Codex file supplied alongside the morphology and makes the necessary changes and ordering for compiling in BibleWorks as a companion text version, the LCT (Leningrad Codex Text).

Regards,
David.

David Kummerow
05-25-2008, 07:53 PM
Discovered a bug with compound names. Will post a fix later today after testing.

Regards,
David.

David Kummerow
05-26-2008, 12:15 AM
Version 2 of both programs is now uploaded, which hopefully addresses the issue of compound names. The issue arose because BW requires an ~ between the compound elements, but the text version did not have this as the Westminster text file does not have it either. The morphology does have it, however, so now running 'MorphToLCM' generates the file 'compounds.txt', which is used by 'WLCtoBW_LCT' to check for and replace necessary compounds.

Regards,
David.

David Kummerow
05-26-2008, 01:51 AM
Hmmm, still a bug where there is more than one compound in a particular verse. Should have this ironed out soon.

Regards,
David.

David Kummerow
05-26-2008, 05:49 AM
Hopefully now all the bugs are out. Version 3 of both programs is uploaded.

Regards,
David.

SCSaunders
05-26-2008, 10:57 AM
Thanks David,

I'm looking forward to checking this out.


hw"+hy> ynEp.li nvol.li-rBo)gI hy"h'-aWh) wOrMeWK dwID'

yugu
05-26-2008, 01:20 PM
Dear David,
Could you post a links to the raw texts of the WLM/WLT also?
Thanks,

David Kummerow
05-26-2008, 05:55 PM
Dear David,
Could you post a links to the raw texts of the WLM/WLT also?
Thanks,

Not sure what you're meaning. If you mean the WTT/WTM currently in BW, there's no need as you can export the versions from there. If you're meaning can I post the updated database files which won't be in BW until the next update comes out, sorry, I am unable to do so. I have signed a license agreement with Westminster disallowing the distribution of their database (or derivatives thereof) without their permission. The database (currently at v.4.8) underlying the WTT in BW (currently at v.4.4) may be found here (http://whi.wts.edu/WHI/WLC/). The morphological database is not available without approaching them directly explaining your need. Dr Kirk Lowrey, the director, may be contacted through here (http://whi.wts.edu/WHI/About/kirkContact).

Hope you fare well!

Regards,
David.

yugu
05-27-2008, 05:16 PM
Thanks, yes, it's quite reasonable. Yet if so, whats the point to post your routines which are programmed especially to convert the new (4.8) WLM/WLT ("the updated database" using your words) for the BW, if the text itself could not be found. I think I'm missing something here?!

David Kummerow
05-27-2008, 06:02 PM
Yet if so, whats the point to post your routines which are programmed especially to convert the new (4.8) WLM/WLT ("the updated database" using your words) for the BW, if the text itself could not be found. I think I'm missing something here?!

I post them here for any other BW user who has access to the raw files from Westminister for them to be able to make use of the database in BW. Philip Brown for one has access and may choose to make use of it. Anyway, it's there to use if and when one is able to so.

Regards,
David.

Ewan MacLeod
05-28-2008, 05:41 AM
Would someone who has used the new WTT/WTM version 4.8 be able to provide an overview of what has changed? Do the changes mostly consist of corrections and bug fixes and things like that, or are there major improvements. For example, in the documentation with the current WTT/WTM in BibleWorks, it said that WHI were hoping to have some major changes in future releases, such as having comments on the Hebrew text, or alternative parsings, or evidence or explanation of why they had parsed words in the way they did. Have any of those changes made it into WTT/WTM v4.8? Does anyone know when v5.0 will be released?
- Ewan MacLeod

David Kummerow
05-28-2008, 06:23 AM
Overview of changes in 4.6:


* Many lemmas have been changed to conform to HALOT. Many other lemmas have been respelled to follow HALOT. A significant number of parsings have also been modified to agree with HALOT.
* A large number of hypothetical pointings of KETIV morphemes have been changed to make them consistent with hypothetical pointings in HALOT or to make them consistent with the same morphological form in the pointed text.
* The hypothetical pointing of ketiv morphemes has been removed from the Westminster Leningrad Codex, wlc46_ps.txt. Hypothetical pointing of ketiv text is necessary for the Westminster Hebrew Morphology but since it is an interpretation of the text of the Leningrad Codex, it has been removed for wlc46_ps.txt.
* The main MORPH manual has been updated to reflect changes introduced in 4.6.
* The meaning of bracket note ]2 has been changed.

Lemma and Changes

We continue the process of checking our lemmas against our lexicographic standard, HALOT (and HALAT). Many difficult decisions must be made that are not necessarily obvious from our final choice. HALOT is not always consistent in how it handles ambiguity and homonyms. In particular, HALOT often declines to state explicitly the part of speech, requiring the reader to decide whether HALOT declines to commit to a part of speech, or simply considers it self-evident. We recommend that the advanced user consult the relevant MorphBug and HALOT directly before reporting an error.
Parsing Changes

We continue to correct our parsings when they conflict with the interpretation in HALOT/HALAT. There are a very small number of cases where we disagree with HALOT. We plan to document these cases in a future release.

Textual Corrections

One of the unique features of the Westminster Hebrew Morphology are the theoretical reconstructions of ketiv vocalizations. In this release we have changed a number of these vocalizations to match. Additionally, a number of ketiv forms that had been parsed and pointed as a singular noun with a 3ms suffix (<OW>) are now pointed and parsed as a plural noun with a 3ms suffix (<FW>), despite the lack of a YOD at the end of the noun, because we feel it is better to view these as plurals that were originally spelled defectively (without the YOD) rather than as singular nouns.

In order to conform more closely to the text of the Leningrad Codex, we have removed eighteen (18) sof pasuqs that were inserted because they would have been expected but are not found in the text. (The reason for the inclusion of these marks was that users who were searching the morphology for certain morphemes at the ends of verses might have missed matches in these eighteen verses if these sof passuqs were not present. We now are presenting the text more precisely.) Each of these eighteen sof pasuqs had a bracket note ]2. The old meaning of ]2 was:

We have added a sof pasuq where L and BHS omit it.

The new meaning of ]2 for Morph 4.6 and later is:

Morph versions 4.4 and earlier inserted a sof pasuq at the end of the text of this verse because it would be expected, but it has been removed for version 4.6 and later because it is not actually present in the Leningrad Codex.


Overview of changes in 4.8:


* A large number of accents have been changed and/or moved. We introduced a new bracket note ]c to mark words in the morpholgy that differ from Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia in accentuation but not in the actual text. This is similar to the bracket note ]3 that marks words that differ from BHS in consonants or pointing. Some of the older notes refer to differences relative to early printings of BHS, but many notes have been removed because BHS 1997 agrees with MORPH on the text (and accents). We have not yet made a comprehensive review of the existing bracket notes, so some older ]3 notes may refer to differences in accentuation. (We hope to do a comprehensive review of bracket notes before the next release.)
* We continue to change lemmas and parsings to conform to HALOT.
* As in the previous release (4.6), the hypothetical pointing of ketiv morphemes has been removed from the Westminster Leningrad Codex, wlc48_ps.txt. Hypothetical pointing of ketiv text is necessary for the Westminster Hebrew Morphology but since such hypothetical pointing is an interpretation of the text of the Leningrad Codex, it is not included in wlc48_ps.txt.
* The main MORPH manual has been updated to reflect changes introduced in 4.8.
* This release contains the release notes for older versions 4.2, 4.4 and 4.6 to assist customers upgrading from older versions. (Release notes are always relative to the most recent previous release, so a customer upgrading from 4.2 to 4.8 should consult the releases notes for versions 4.4, 4.6 and 4.8.)
* The files morph48.wts and wlc48_ps.txt now contain a header comment of a dozen or so lines beginning with # that identify the file as coming from the J. Alan Groves Center for Advanced Biblical Research and provide identifying information about the sources used to create each file (the date and time and the internal revision number) as well as copyright and contact information.

Lemma and Changes

We continue the process of checking our lemmas against our lexicographic standard, HALOT (and HALAT). Many difficult decisions must be made that are not necessarily obvious from our final choice. HALOT is not always consistent in how it handles ambiguity and homonyms. In particular, HALOT often declines to state explicitly the part of speech, requiring the reader to decide whether HALOT declines to commit to a part of speech, or simply considers it self-evident. We recommend that the advanced user consult the relevant MorphBug and HALOT directly before reporting an error.
Parsing Changes

We continue to correct our parsings when they conflict with the interpretation in HALOT/HALAT. There are a very small number of cases where we disagree with HALOT. We plan to document these cases in a future release.

Textual Corrections

One of the unique features of the Westminster Hebrew Morphology are the theoretical reconstructions of ketiv vocalizations. In this release we have changed a few of these vocalizations to match the parsing we provide. We have also made a few changes to the text of MORPH in places where we found we did not match the Leningrad Codex. This sometimes (but not always) causes us to disagree with BHS. This release includes many changes to the accents, sometimes also causing us to disagree with BHS.

This is just the overview to give the idea. Further on in each Release Notes each change is detailed.

Regards,
David.

Adelphos
05-28-2008, 02:08 PM
I suspect these changes are good news to most people, but not to me. As far as I'm concerned, all they're doing is moving further and further away from the received text according the philosophy of modern textual criticism, which is of course all the rage.

In any case, regardless of one's position on that, what I'm curious about is how BW is going to deal with this. That is, whenever BW "updates" its database, assuming they're eventually going to adopt these changes, I'm guessing that the database in use now willl be overwritten. Yes?

Ergo, is it safe to assume that if I want access in the future to the database currently in use that I need to go ahead and export WTT/WTM now and then recompile into a different acronym set? Or is BW going to maintain different sets? I kind of doubt that, considering the overhead.

Anybody know?

Michael Hanel
05-28-2008, 02:12 PM
Ergo, is it safe to assume that if I want access in the future to the database currently in use that I need to export WTT/WTM and then recompile into a different acronym set? Or is BW going to maintain different sets? I kind of doubt that, considering the overhead.

Anybody know?

I don't "know", but judging from other databases, I would be highly surprised were this not the case. I don't know how the Westminster group differs from other copyright holders, but generally when they license out a newer version, they expect you to stop selling the older one unless you pay separate fees for it. So if you still want the older editions, you would have to go back and export them like you've said.

SCSaunders
05-28-2008, 02:50 PM
I suspect these changes are good news to most people, but not to me. I haven't formulated an opinion either way.
As far as I'm concerned, all they're doing is moving further and further away from the received text according the philosophy of modern textual criticism, which is of course all the rage.I'm genuinely curious. How would you succinctly define this philosophy? Have you posted about it on your blog? I would read it if you have. I'm being serious here. Don't read any confrontational tone into this. I'm looking for just a short answer, not a tome. Having said that, I know short answers take longer to write. If you have the time, I would be interested.


Ergo, is it safe to assume that if I want access in the future to the database currently in use that I need to go ahead and export WTT/WTM now and then recompile into a different acronym set?This sounds like a pretty good idea.

Adelphos
05-28-2008, 04:10 PM
Have you posted about it on your blog? I would read it if you have.

Well, I don't have a blog, but I do have a website. :)

The philosopy that drives NT textual criticism is also the philosopy that drives OT textual criticism, but I'm not going to get into that here.

For plain information's sake, and very basically, the Leningrad Codex is taken as virtually the exclusive witness to the OT (there are of course slight variations among proponents, some of whom will admit other variants, such as from the DSS, LXX, and so forth).

Also, there has been a debate for years over whether the LC represents the Ben Asher or the Ben Napthali text.

As I said this is a very, very bare explanation, so please understand it that way.

Elementally, you can simply say that LC is different from the Received Text (Bomberg/Ben Chayyim), and leave it at that.

If you want to go a little further, then there's the Massorah, which with the LC is hopelessly confused and deficient, and which is why a 20th century scholar, not a Jewish Mosorete, had to basically fabricate the Masorah for the critical edition of LC, as opposed to assimilating it as the Masoretes and those following did.

Further, there are so many places in the OT that really cannot be properly understood without the Masorah, such as Psalm 22:16, that its absence in modern scholarship is a HUGE black hole.

On the other hand, the Renaissance translators, who were masters of the Masorah, especially those who translated the KJV -- in fact, their knowledge of the Masorah has never even REMOTELY been equaled, or even approached -- and so the Renaissance translators did not, as some have erroneously asserted, massage the text in Psalm 22:16, but rather, based on commentary in the Masorah and additional manuscripts which were listed in various registers of that day but no longer extant (as is also the case with many NT manuscripts), where the hireq-yod and the surek were genuine variants, they in fact accurately translated the phrase as "...they PIERCED my hands and feet" because that's what the Masorah and variant manuscripts dictated.

So the next time you hear a modern pulpiteer "correct" the Hebrew, ask him what the Masorah has to say about it, especially the Masorah Magna and the Masorah Finalis. And when he looks at you like a deer in the headlights, remind him also that he won't find the vast majority of that information in the LC pseudo Masorah. He'll have to go way back to the Received Text for that corpus.

And so on.

So, again, regardless of where one stands on this issue, I think some of us would like to know how BW is going to handle the databases, because the texts are very definitely going to be different.

Finally, even the database we already have is removed from the Received Text, but these other changes will just move it even further away, so I'd like to make sure that we can at least preserve what we have.

I guess the best way to do that and be sure about it is take my own advice and export/recompile.

SCSaunders
05-29-2008, 08:08 AM
Nice job Scott. Lots to chew on. Thanks for taking the time and giving me [and any others reading] some very useful information, stuff to build upon gradually.

David Kummerow
05-29-2008, 07:13 PM
Version 4 of MorphToLCM has been uploaded (http://home.exetel.com.au/galapo/BibleWorks/MorphToLCM.rar). Fixed a bug where the silluq accent in the 18 verses which don't have a final sof pasuq was misdiagnosed as a metheg (i.e., given a Z2 accent code instead of a Z9 code).

For those interested, the changes to the text of the WTT from versions 4.0 to 4.9 may be found here: http://www.tanach.us/Tanach.xml#Supplements.

Regards,
David.

SCSaunders
05-31-2008, 03:21 PM
For those interested, the changes to the text of the WTT from versions 4.0 to 4.9 may be found here: http://www.tanach.us/Tanach.xml#Supplements.

Regards,
David.Thanks David. Truth be told, this degree of Hebrew Text Critical stuff is way over my head and study committment. In all reality, I'm going to stick with my BHS hard covers, like that A Reader's Hebrew Bible (http://www.bibleworks.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2868) that A. Phillip Brown did and whatever comes with Bible Works. In my teaching, I don't want to cover too much of this and worry whatever audience I'm ministering to that thier English translations are suspect. But, and I do mean a big ... ehhhh ... skip it.

Anyways, I will read all this to at least have an understanding.

earth
06-18-2008, 09:01 AM
The new Beta of WTM is playing back the scripts in a test plan in reverse order i.e. a test plan that consisted of Script1, Script2, Script3 plays back as Script3, Script2, Script1. This issue did not happen in version 1.0.5 and any work around would be appreciated.

David Kummerow
06-19-2008, 06:48 PM
@earth
WTM does not "play" any scripts and has never done so. Nor is there any such version as 1.0.5. Please explain clearly what you mean, which will also, I assume, at the same time clear up the seeming likelihood that you are in fact a spammer (which seems to me an increasing occurance on this forum), given the suspicious links in your signature.

David Kummerow
08-27-2008, 12:17 AM
Since I've now received version 4.10 of the Westminster morphology, I've been compiling new Hebrew versions into BW again. As such, I've now fixed an issue with the generated text version where the verse contains editorial notes (encoded in the text file as ]1, ]2, etc.). Of course, newer notations introduced since 4.8 (e.g. ]c) will not be represented in the analysis window as these are unknown to BW as it only "knows" 4.8 tags.

Version 4 of WLCtoBW_LCT has now been uploaded (http://home.exetel.com.au/galapo/BibleWorks/WLCtoBW_LCT.rar).

Regards,
David.

David Kummerow
08-27-2008, 11:35 PM
In upgrading things to version 4.10 of the morphology and text, I have now introduced a change to the programs where the version number is attempted to be read from the inputted file (previously, version was hard-coded as 4.8). If it can't be determined, then version number is not added.

MorphToLCM version 6 (http://home.exetel.com.au/galapo/BibleWorks/MorphToLCM.rar).
WLCtoBW_LCT version 5 (http://home.exetel.com.au/galapo/BibleWorks/WLCtoBW_LCT.rar).

Regards,
David.

bobvenem
12-05-2009, 10:54 AM
Spambots!!! Run for your lives!!

bkMitchell
09-30-2010, 09:40 PM
In upgrading things to version 4.10 of the morphology and text, I have now introduced a change to the programs where the version number is attempted to be read from the inputted file (previously, version was hard-coded as 4.8). If it can't be determined, then version number is not added.

MorphToLCM version 6 (http://home.exetel.com.au/galapo/BibleWorks/MorphToLCM.rar).
WLCtoBW_LCT version 5 (http://home.exetel.com.au/galapo/BibleWorks/WLCtoBW_LCT.rar).

Regards,
David.

This is really cool David.
What, was the end result of your technical engineering and Semitic/Syntactical research?