LS Module Trial?
The unabridged Liddell-Scott 9. ed. module is a welcome addition to BW7. However, it is also expensive. Some people may in fact have another electronic version. It might nevertheless be preferable to have LS in BW7.
Are there any plans for a two week trial or something like that, so that one could check it out?
Georg S. Adamsen
I couldn't answer you on BW policies on things like that, but I did post a quick review and I will try to get a few pictures up. From my experience, this is definitely the best (especially meaning most accurate, i.e. wo typos) digital edition of the Great Scott available.
Originally Posted by Michael Hanel
Thank you for your quick review.
I assume that you know that there still are some problems in the "other" e-edition, such as missing accents in words that in the printed edition are comprised of an entry and a subentry. Have you been able to check how the BW7-edition handles these problems?
I'm going to try to get pictures up on the blog soon (next week is the end of the academic quarter and I'm trying to get PhD applications taken care of, so I am a little overbusy right now), Georg, if you want more extensive pictures or descriptions definitely email me off the list and I can tell you my experience with other formats -- I had similar concerns that you had and I have been quite satisified with how this version works.
Originally Posted by Adamsen
I think BW tries to correct as many errors as possible if they are errors, but you also have to keep in mind that completely re-hauling the lexicon (and its admitted shortcomings in organization when it comes to the print edition!) probably has not been an option available to any e-editions because ultimately Oxford has the final say because it is their product in a sense too. What BW has done however is make sense out of some of the organizational nonsense and made it easy for you to get an entry which you're looking for.
Now chances are there are still typos and such in a work of this magnitude. I judge BW on this point by their track record and they have done their utmost in other lexicons to provide free updates/etc. in the future, when they have corrected anything like typos etc. So if there are typos or other issues, report them and get them fixed, but I have found it to be a really clean text so far.
If there are any others who have purchased LSJM, I (and Georg and others probably) would welcome your opinion about it. I don't want the only opinion to be my own.
The unabridged Liddell & Scott, Jones & McKenzie works seemlessly within BibleWorks, just as all the other lexicons do. When you place your cursor over any biblical word in the browse window, BW will display the LSJM entry in the Word Analysis window at the end (after all the other lexicons). BW displays both the main LSJM entry as well as the Supplement entries that go with it. (This is much handier than the printed edition.)
You can make LSJM your default lexicon in the lexicon browser and just click on a word in the browse window and look up the lemma, and you'll see the LSJM entry in the browser, including (at the head of the entry) all the words that are included in the entry with the same first letters.
There is also a list of words in LSJM in alphabetical order at the left side of the lexicon browser. So you can see at a glance if a word is a main entry, a sub-entry, or in the Supplement.
The accents have been correctly added for all biblical words (and those in the Apostlic Fathers, Josephus, and Philo). There are still words in LSJM that do not occur in these writings which do not have the accents added in the list of sub-entries. (I'm sure BW will eventually correct any omissions that you may find.)
The LSJM will be especially useful in reading all the classical databases that Michael Hanel has been making available to BW users. Without LSJM BW already has the abridged LS, which should provide definitions for almost all the words in these databases. But in many cases LSJM will provide considerably more information. The more morphology versions that are produced for these classical writers, the more useful LSJM will become. I have already tried it with Homer, and it works well (except for a few unaccented words--they'll keep working on that).
There are even hypertexted biblical references in LSJM (though the printed edition does not consistently follow the LXX verse numbering, so some of the hypertexts may be off by a verse or two). This also allows LSJM to have entries in the Resource Summary tab to notify you when LSJM has a specific reference to the verse you are studying. Admittedly this is only for more rare words or for un-classical uses of those words in the Bible, but those would be the words for which you would especially want an alternate opinion to the other lexicons.
Too bad if someone already bought LSJM for brand X. I'm sure it's much handier integrated into BibleWorks.
We did our best to fix the accents. The problem is that the LSJ does not spell out subentries. They just have the "suffix" with a dash in front and the user is expected to construct the word in their head. We paid to have the LSJ scanned and proofed as is, i.e. with the subentries this way. For the BW version, the words are constructed from subentries electronically. Unfortunately the accents don't always come out correctly when you recompose the word. The best that we could do for now is to insure that all words that occur in any of our morphological databases are accented properly.
We believe this to be the most accurate electronic edition of the "Great" Scott available. There are still typos though. The text is huge and represents a humongous amount of work. Oxford is beginning a project now, using our text and other resources, to produce the best text possible. That will be made available to our users (who purchased LSJM) without charge.
With regard to trials, they are too much of a hassle to support. I would suggest purchasing and if you don't like it get a refund within 30 days. It is absolutely no hassle. You don't even have to give a reason. I wish the price was lower, but it is set by Oxford, not us. We hope this new addition is helpful to some of our users. It is a bit of a risk for us, as it will be difficult for us to recoup our costs and there are minimum sales that we have to make to keep the license. But we felt that it was something that we needed to do. The classical background for NT and LXX Greek is important in determining the nuances of meaning in many words.
I posted another blog post on the LSJM module, I hope it is helpful for those checking it out.
i have the paper version of liddell scott, do i really want to invest in the cost with bw??
I suppose that depends what you want to do. If you use your paper Liddell-Scott and think it's valuable, I am pretty sure you will want LSJM in BW. It is much more helpful. If you don't really use your print LS and don't want to do a lot of really in depth Greek study or word studies, then it probably wouldn't matter much to you.
Originally Posted by rriffle822
So how come you have LS and how do use it? That will help answer part of it. The other part of it is even if you did not use LS very much, you will undoubtedly use LSJM. I personally can't tell you the last time I used my print BDAG (which I bought before I knew about BW), but I don't think I ever translate Greek without using my BDAG in BW....
My own reflection on what I want in electronic form and what I want in paper form. It seems like lexicons, dictionaries, and the like are prime candidates for the linked format that's so well implemented in Bible Works. Like Mike, it's been awhile since I used my paper copies of BDAG, LS, HALOT, Louw-Nida and the like. The only reason to do that is to look up the page number in HALOT if I want to cite it with proper pagination :confused:
Originally Posted by Michael Hanel
I do like something like Galaxie's CD of key journals; the searchable feature on that is great, partly because it's all indexed in one "volume" and I don't have to roam all over the shelves looking for it--to say nothing of having to subscribe to an expensive journal indexing service to find things. Commentaries, monographs--and novels--are another matter. Here I want a bound paper copy that I can flip through, see the larger whole by glancing around. And perhaps some of it is just pleasure at the old fashioned "feel" of a book in my hands in those cases. That reasoning keeps me less than interested in Logos and the Libronex approach.
But I don't want that look and feel for the lexicons and like--I love the linking, pop-up glosses and cross-references. Now that's useful. I doubt if I'll start selling off my print copies--like selling my children--but I don't expect to be looking up things in them anytime soon either. BW is it for those tools.