Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 29 of 29

Thread: Typo in WTT

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    125

    Default

    I did change the font size to 30. But my compiled text is still 24. See the screenshot below for difference.
    Name:  Sketch.png
Views: 140
Size:  327.6 KB
    Martin Zhang

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    280

    Default

    Are you sure that you have Browse/Analysis Window Font selected, not Search Window Fonts or Export Fonts?

    Name:  browse window fonts.jpg
Views: 134
Size:  63.7 KB
    Last edited by now john; 09-17-2018 at 09:28 PM.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    125

    Default

    Yes. That's why the WTT text in the screenshot I attached was changed to size 30.
    Martin Zhang

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    280

    Default

    You're right. The two are not the same size. On my installation of BW the WTT and WTTR are both the same size at 18 30 and 60.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    125

    Default

    OK. I just found another trick.
    We must leave the font as default, and the size blank. then it will react to the changes in the settings.
    If we assign values to them, they will stay as assigned.
    Martin Zhang

  6. #26

    Default It's complicated.

    I'm coming into this thread very late, but I wanted to clarify a couple of things about this "typo", since I was the one who decided on what WTT would read here.

    It's not a typo. It was deliberate, and we had several long discussions about it at Westminster. The difference between WTT and BHS/Q is a disagreement over how to read the manuscript at that point. Cf. the attachment of a snippet of the manuscript at Dt 7:8 below.

    Name:  Dt7-8Leningrad.png
Views: 73
Size:  79.2 KB

    There are two issues here: first, what does the manuscript actually read? There are two smudges around the waw, one of which supports a shureq and one supports a holem-waw. In our opinion, the dagesh inside the waw (making a shureq) is darker and more defined. One could speculate about whether the scribe made a mistake and tried to erase the error, but which was the intended dagesh? Our decision was based upon the principle Represent what is written, not what was meant. This means WTT attempts to record what we see, warts, errors and all.

    "Wait," you say, "there's a real problem with reading a shureq. That makes the word a qal perfect 3rd plural, with a preposition attached on the front. That can't be. If we read a holem-waw, that makes it an infinitive construct + 3ms suffix, and that works with a preposition. So the scribe couldn't have intended to write a shureq." Yes, a preposition with a finite verb (e.g., perfect) would be very strange. And a far more frequent use would be a preposition plus an infinitive construct. So, the possibility of an error in favor of the infinitive construct is very plausible. But that is an editorial judgment, interpreting the text. In our view, that is outside the role of a digital representation of the text.

    Let the reader decide.
    Kirk E. Lowery, PhD

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    763

    Default

    Very interesting, Kirk. The version notes for WTT in BibleWorks read:
    The WTT Hebrew text is based on the Michigan-Claremont Hebrew text, encoded in 1981-1982 at the University of Michigan under the direction of H. Van Dyke Parunak (of the University of Michigan) and Richard E. Whitaker (of the Institute for Antiquity and Christianity, Claremont Graduate University) with the financial support of the Packard Foundation. The Michigan-Claremont text is an encoding of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, which in turn attempts to be a faithful reproduction of the latest hand of the Leningrad Codex. The text included in BibleWorks is the Hebrew text distributed with the Groves-Wheeler Westminster Morphology and Lemma Database (WTM) and has been edited over the years to bring it into greater conformity with the Leningrad Codex.
    That last statement indicates the intent to be a transcription rather than an edited text (and at this point even BHS obviously displays an editorial judgment). It's a very valuable point to be aware of.
    David Rensberger
    Atlanta, Georgia

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    439

    Default

    For the record, if you have word tips enabled, the word under discussion will display, in its popup, notes saying that WTS (which is WTT) reads a punctuation character in L differently from BHQ and BHS.

    And looking closer at BHQ it appears to me that BHQ saw both of the "two smudges" as being just smudges, and does not accept either of them.

    --Jim
    Last edited by Jim Wert; 04-02-2019 at 12:20 PM. Reason: Added last sentence.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    763

    Default

    And, a step further, the note in the BHQ apparatus is:
    ‏וּמִשָּׁמְר֤ו‎ ML (err‎)
    |‎ ‏וּמִשָּׁמְר֤וֹ‎ ML17 MS5
    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
  •