PDA

View Full Version : Hebrew Kybd Bug



Yitshak Kugler
09-09-2004, 02:37 PM
I just got BW 6 and the Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts. In trying to search the Qumran text i discovered that the Hebrew Keyboard Map allows for a Shin with the dot on the right hand side or a Sin with the dot on the left hand side but does not allow for an unpointed Shin. The Qumran text is unpointed as it should be because these texts came hundreds of years before there was any pointing. The first thing i tried to find in the Qumran text was MASE HaTORAH. "MASE" was entered with a Sin but showed up in red as not existing. When i entered only the word TORAH i was able to see that indeed there was an example of MASE TORAH.

This bug means that anything with a Sin or Shin will not be found in the Qumran text.

Joe Fleener
09-09-2004, 03:54 PM
Just as a note be sure and report any bugs to BibleWorks directly. See:

http://www.bibleworks.com/forums/showthread.php?t=268

Joe Fleener
09-09-2004, 07:59 PM
If you go to tools - font maps.

Then click on Keymap Tables

In that window change the drop down menu to Hebrew (Bwhebb).

Number 88 seems to be an unpointed shin.

jdarlack
09-10-2004, 07:32 AM
Yep! Shift-x is an unpointed Shin.

It would make sense to me if BW could add a feature to "ambiguate" shin, sin and the unpointed shin. That way you could easily cross search from the WTT/WTM to the QST/QSM by changing the search database in the Advanced Search Engine without having to change all your sins and shins into unpointed shins. In essence, it would be a feature where you could "ignore" sin/shin pointing, just like you can search and ignore vowel pointing.

:) Added later: Also, for the sake of text criticism/lexical study, it would be nice to be able to search simply for the unpointed Shin, so that wherever there is an ambiguous word where an interchange between a Shin and a Sin occurs, one could find it without having to do backflips with the search coding (I have not had need of this yet, but I can imagine it would be handy!)

Ben Spackman
09-10-2004, 03:20 PM
I strongly second that suggestion!