Page 17 of 17 FirstFirst ... 7151617
Results 161 to 170 of 170

Thread: What would you like to see in Bibleworks 11?

  1. #161
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidR View Post
    . . .I apologize for pointing out the obvious in my earlier post.
    Actually, I'm grateful for your replies since they made possible a specific illustration of the request. Thanks again.
    Gary

  2. #162
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    2

    Default Add Browser Window Indented Outline Heading Capability

    Here is my suggestion for BW 11. Right now we can modify and make our own the Browser Window's Outline Headings file. However, currently only one outline level is allowed. It would be great to enable us to have multiple levels. A simple (conceptually - hopefully also implementation) modification to allow multiple entries in the outline file to have the same reference. Then we could do something like:

    .....
    Lev 1:1 1. SACRIFICIAL SYSTEM
    Lev 1:1 1.1 OFFERING LAWS
    Lev 1:1 1.1.1 Burnt Offerings
    Lev 2:1 1.1.2 Grain Offerings
    Lev 3:1 1.1.3 Peace Offerings
    ....

    Currently if multiple lines have the same reference BW puts them on the same line (at least sometimes it does this).

    BTW. Currently if there is an empty line in the outline file, BW barfs during compilation (it recovers when restarted). It would be helpful for BW to ignore empty lines so that spaces could be used to make indented outline files clearer.

  3. #163

    Default Morphological English Version - for searches and comparisons

    A morphological English version would make it possible to do morphological searches with an English translation. In addition, the morphological tags of the English translation could be compared to the morphological tags of the Greek and Hebrew texts. That could highlight many misunderstandings of the text that are simply due to translation difficulties, or even outright errors.

    Maybe copyrights would make this difficult, but at least it wouldn't interfere with the KJV and other translations that are in the public domain - assuming the KJV is in the public domain.

    I am quite sure this must have been considered before and rejected for some good reason.

  4. #164
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jonathanhaslett View Post
    A morphological English version would make it possible to do morphological searches with an English translation. In addition, the morphological tags of the English translation could be compared to the morphological tags of the Greek and Hebrew texts. That could highlight many misunderstandings of the text that are simply due to translation difficulties, or even outright errors.

    Maybe copyrights would make this difficult, but at least it wouldn't interfere with the KJV and other translations that are in the public domain - assuming the KJV is in the public domain.

    I am quite sure this must have been considered before and rejected for some good reason.
    Hi Jonathan, and welcome to the forums! A couple of thoughts on this. First, English doesn't have a great deal of morphology, certainly not as compared with Greek and Hebrew. Second, and more importantly, there's no reason to expect a one-to-one correspondence between the morphological tagging in two different languages. For instance, in Mark 5:36, Jesus says μὴ φοβοῦ, μόνον πίστευε. In Luke 8:50 (Luke's version of the same story), he says μὴ φοβοῦ, μόνον πίστευσον. In both versions, φοβοῦ is a present tense imperative, and the implication is "don't go on fearing." However, Mark's πίστευε is also a present tense imperative, perhaps implying, "keep on believing," whereas Luke's πίστευσον is aorist imperative, implying simply "believe," or perhaps "start believing." But there is no aorist tense in English, and we do not make anything resembling this distinction in imperatives, so that for all practical purposes (i.e., outside something like the Amplified Bible), English translators must render both verses as something like "Do not fear, only believe." So IMHO, English morphological tagging wouldn't really accomplish as much as one might desire.
    David Rensberger
    Atlanta, Georgia

  5. #165

    Default Here's why I'd like English morphological tagging

    Here's why I'd like English morphological tagging:

    I'd like to be able to look up certain morphological tags in Greek, and then get a report of the various morphological forms with which it is translated in, say, the KJV (i.e., not just the translation, but sorted by English morph. tagging). There are many cases where the rule that context must be considered has a major role in how a certain Greek form is translated into English.

    Sometimes it would be, for example, useful to see the morphology of English translations of the Greek aorist active subjunctives, e.g., John 14:13-14's future in English ("whatsoever ye shall ask…") compared to John 15:7's present in English. KJV seems to imply a subjunctive idea in 15:7, while it's form is a simple present: "If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you". Since English has a lot of ambiguity (and some translations have used that ambiguity to a great degree), I'm not sure how easy it'd be to tag the English morphologically. I've never tried anything like that.
    Last edited by ETC; 12-07-2017 at 08:04 AM. Reason: improve clarity (I hope!)

  6. #166
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787

    Default

    Well, a couple more things. Part of the issue is that the Greek construction in John 14:13 is different from the ones in John 14:14; 15:7. More significantly, though, you're using the KJV, which recently celebrated its 400th birthday. It's an honored and honorable version, but its English is in many ways no longer the English that we use. One difference is precisely in the construction of conditions. In a quick check, I couldn't find any translation made in the 20th or 21st century that used the future tense in John 14:13-14, because that's not how English works any more.

    IOW, in this particular instance I'm not sure that English morphology tagging would answer your question. My guess would be that the KJV differs in John 15:7 from 14:14 because the (apparent) future tense sounded more natural to the translators in the latter than the former. They did not feel bound to use the same English construction in every instance of a particular Greek construction, which is one reason that the KJV often still sounds so beautiful and rhythmic today: that, rather than pedantic uniformity, was part of their aim.

    FWIW, I checked a few other versions in John 14:13 (BibleWorks includes earlier texts, such as Tyndale and the Bishops Bible), and prior to the KJV, the future tense was not used. The KJV introduced it, and then it was continued in later revisions, until 20th-century translators began using ordinary modern English.

    I'm not sure if you're looking for an automated comparison between Greek and English versions (which would require that the versions be linked on a word-by-word level, which is not always even possible), or just want to eyeball the morph tags between English and Greek. In the latter case, I think it might be just as easy to eyeball the English and recognize tenses, as you've been doing.
    David Rensberger
    Atlanta, Georgia

  7. #167

    Default I agree with a lot of what you said

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidR View Post
    Well, a couple more things. Part of the issue is that the Greek construction in John 14:13 is different from the ones in John 14:14; 15:7. More significantly, though, you're using the KJV, which recently celebrated its 400th birthday. It's an honored and honorable version, but its English is in many ways no longer the English that we use. One difference is precisely in the construction of conditions. In a quick check, I couldn't find any translation made in the 20th or 21st century that used the future tense in John 14:13-14, because that's not how English works any more.

    IOW, in this particular instance I'm not sure that English morphology tagging would answer your question. My guess would be that the KJV differs in John 15:7 from 14:14 because the (apparent) future tense sounded more natural to the translators in the latter than the former. They did not feel bound to use the same English construction in every instance of a particular Greek construction, which is one reason that the KJV often still sounds so beautiful and rhythmic today: that, rather than pedantic uniformity, was part of their aim.

    FWIW, I checked a few other versions in John 14:13 (BibleWorks includes earlier texts, such as Tyndale and the Bishops Bible), and prior to the KJV, the future tense was not used. The KJV introduced it, and then it was continued in later revisions, until 20th-century translators began using ordinary modern English.

    I'm not sure if you're looking for an automated comparison between Greek and English versions (which would require that the versions be linked on a word-by-word level, which is not always even possible), or just want to eyeball the morph tags between English and Greek. In the latter case, I think it might be just as easy to eyeball the English and recognize tenses, as you've been doing.
    I agree with a lot of what you said, David. I realize all of that about the KJV,and I agree that it's likely a lot of the translators' decisions were influenced by how it sounded (when they thought either option was translationally acceptable).

    I just wanted to say I can see a use for English morphological tagging. I don't think it's something that is essential, but I can envision for interesting things it might reveal, things I had not thought of. That's all.

    Thanks for engaging with the text here.

    Eric

  8. #168

    Default Agreed, but ...

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidR View Post
    Well, a couple more things. Part of the issue is that the Greek construction in John 14:13 is different from the ones in John 14:14; 15:7. More significantly, though, you're using the KJV, which recently celebrated its 400th birthday. It's an honored and honorable version, but its English is in many ways no longer the English that we use. One difference is precisely in the construction of conditions. In a quick check, I couldn't find any translation made in the 20th or 21st century that used the future tense in John 14:13-14, because that's not how English works any more.

    IOW, in this particular instance I'm not sure that English morphology tagging would answer your question. My guess would be that the KJV differs in John 15:7 from 14:14 because the (apparent) future tense sounded more natural to the translators in the latter than the former. They did not feel bound to use the same English construction in every instance of a particular Greek construction, which is one reason that the KJV often still sounds so beautiful and rhythmic today: that, rather than pedantic uniformity, was part of their aim.

    FWIW, I checked a few other versions in John 14:13 (BibleWorks includes earlier texts, such as Tyndale and the Bishops Bible), and prior to the KJV, the future tense was not used. The KJV introduced it, and then it was continued in later revisions, until 20th-century translators began using ordinary modern English.

    I'm not sure if you're looking for an automated comparison between Greek and English versions (which would require that the versions be linked on a word-by-word level, which is not always even possible), or just want to eyeball the morph tags between English and Greek. In the latter case, I think it might be just as easy to eyeball the English and recognize tenses, as you've been doing.
    Thank you very much for your response. I do understand the difficulty. English uses syntax to determine grammatical use, and this would certainly create problems when comparing English to inflected languages, and maybe it would be simply impossible.

    I really do enjoy the ability to make searches in Greek and Hebrew that can limit the search to verbs, or only certain types of verbs, etc. I appreciate the "fuzzy search" capability with English, but I wish there was something similar that could be done with at least one of the English translations, that would be similar the precision that is possible with the tagged text. And with the graphical search engine there are few limits, but I thought I might have found at least one limitation that might be overcome.

    I have to admit this request is a bit lazy. I could put together a spreadsheet that would show the sort of thing I want to see. The big problem for me is that I'm not sure that I'd be getting it right. So, that's probably what is really at the bottom of my desire for a tagged English text. I'd like to have a grammatically analyzed English text to make sure I'm uderstanding everything correctly. It's been quite sometime since I reviewed English grammar in detail. I would probably do well to do it now.

    Again, thank you very much for taking my request with such a high degree of seriousness.

  9. #169
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    5

    Default Switch between configurations

    I often have several study & teaching projects going at the same time. I found that the way Logos allows for saving a number of display configuration very helpful. In this way, I can have several sets of display versions together with the search version ready to be changed back by clicking a button.

    Also, the classroom computers are often shared by various teachers, each having their own favorite way to have BW displayed (OT, NT, others). By having several custom display configurations and the ability to switch them easily, it would be much easier to get it going when switching classes.

  10. #170
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787

    Default

    I often have several study & teaching projects going at the same time. I found that the way Logos allows for saving a number of display configuration very helpful. In this way, I can have several sets of display versions together with the search version ready to be changed back by clicking a button.

    Also, the classroom computers are often shared by various teachers, each having their own favorite way to have BW displayed (OT, NT, others). By having several custom display configurations and the ability to switch them easily, it would be much easier to get it going when switching classes.
    A certain amount of what you're looking for, though probably not all of it, can be attained by using saved tab sets (right-click on tabs > Save Tabs to Disk). I have a number of tab sets related to particular projects, and in each set, each tab has a particular configuration of search version, display versions, etc. I even keep a tab set called "Clean," which has just a basic setup with no searches going on, etc., so I can always start fresh.
    Last edited by DavidR; 01-02-2018 at 12:08 PM.
    David Rensberger
    Atlanta, Georgia

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •