Lemma and Root searching...

Page 1 of 2 (28 items) 1 2 Next >
This post has 27 Replies | 2 Followers

Posts 308
James W Bennett | Forum Activity | Posted: Tue, Nov 10 2009 6:23 AM

Ok, I am a little confused here...

If I search for root:hebrew:אבל I get no results. If I search for lemma:hebrew:אבל I get a some results (88 in 85 articles) but ONLY within dictionaries, lexicons and vocabulary lists.

If I search for root:syriac:ܐܒܠ I get some results (20 in 14 articles) but only the lexicons and Peshitta not the Old Syrian Gospels. If I search for lemma:syriac:ܐܒܠ then I get no results.

Searches using Aramaic seem to follow the Hebrew in that results are returned when using lemma (7 in 7 articles) rather than root.

In V3 a lemma:אבל (couldn't separate Hebrew and Aramaic) search returns 1039 occurrences and includes Biblical texts, Canaanite Inscriptions, Qumran texts, Cairo Geniza texts, etc... pretty much what you would expect. root returned nothing for Hebrew/Aramaic. For Syriac it returned results for both searches but the lemma search had more hits in the lexicon and fewer hits in the Peshitta than the root search and some of the missing hits in the Peshitta were valid. V3 also missed the Old Syrian Gospels.

So, how do we know what resources are tagged and in what way? Do we use lemma or root? Do we get biblical text or not? Do we get all resources of that language that have word with a particular root or lemma not?

---

James W Bennett

http://syriac.tara-lu.com/

Posts 25378
Forum MVP
Dave Hooton | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Nov 10 2009 8:42 PM

James W Bennett:
how do we know what resources are tagged and in what way? Do we use lemma or root? Do we get biblical text or not? Do we get all resources of that language that have word with a particular root or lemma not?

Open a resource and look at its Information (circled i) page. Under Search Fields you will find the fields (footnote, surface, page) which allow special searching. If root is defined then it would be used in Basic Search according to the description provided (I haven't seen it with my resources, though). lemma is explicitly defined in L3 but not in L4. You can assume it for bibles with morphology but right click a word to see if lemma appears on the context menu. 

For a bible, you use lemma: in Morph Search only (if you select a word with a definition you will find that lemma: is automatically prefixed, but I'm not confident this is a reliable indicator). For a non-bible with morphology I assume its name can be selected from the in list. If you then press Bible Search the format will change to something like <lemma = lbs/el/λόγος>, which can also be used in Basic Search.

NB. If a word selection in Morph Search results in hebrew:word or Greek:word a subsequent search will be on the surface or manuscript text only. If you want to try a lemma search then use lemma:word. I found results for your word in Westminster morphology using lemma:אֲבָל

HTH

 

Dave
===

Windows 10 & Android 8

Posts 308
James W Bennett | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Nov 10 2009 10:02 PM

David, I am not sure if you understand what I am asking, and I certainly do not understand what you were explaining in the context of what I wanted to know Smile

So let me back off a little and ask a more focused question. Lets say, for example, I want to search my entire library for all occurrences of words that use דבר as a root. I would expect that I would use a basic search and input lemma:דבר. I would expect results from the Qumran texts, the Cairo-Geniza texts, Hebrew and Canaanite Inscriptions, all the Biblical resources such as the BHS, and maybe a few others, this approach worked in V3. If in V4 I use a basic search then all I get are dictionaries, vocabularies, and lexicons. In V4 if I use the morphological search I just seem to get Biblical text. So... how do I search all resources that are morphologically tagged for all words that use דבר as a root?

Also, if any of the Logos people are listening, I have no scroll bar in morphological search results windows so I can not scroll through the long list of results. Combined with the fact that we can't collapse books, it makes searches that have more than about 15-20 results useless.

---

James W Bennett

http://syriac.tara-lu.com/

Posts 25378
Forum MVP
Dave Hooton | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Nov 11 2009 3:09 AM

The answer to your more focussed Q is fairly simple, using Basic Search:-

  • bibles have to be searched in the format I indicated. The easiest way to get that is to start with lemma:word in Morph Search, then click on Basic Search
  • non-bibles can be searched with lemma:word for the most part. But you would have to check the resource information as I indicated if you wondered why a particular resource is  not returning results. You can detect this easily if you compare the results from L3, and it would indicate a metadata issue in L4.

The problem for bibles is that you have to include all possible morphologies in the search and the term will look like:

lemma:word OR <lemma for morph 1> OR <lemma for morph 2> OR <lemma for morph 3>

So L4 has complicated a simple search in L3!

BTW I do have a scroll bar in Morph Search. Try widening the pane.

Dave
===

Windows 10 & Android 8

Posts 308
James W Bennett | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Nov 11 2009 6:12 AM

Taking your suggestion I picked a Hebrew root, טבע, that has an Aramaic and Syriac cognate. Trying to search all of my resources for uses of that root in V3 was straight forward:

lemma:ܛܒܥ OR lemma:טבע

Searching in V4 became MUCH more complex:

טבע OR ܛܒܥ OR root:ܛܒܥ OR lemma:syriac:ܛܒܥ OR lemma:hebrew:טבע OR lemma:aramaic:טבע OR <lemma = s3/syr/ܛܒܥ> OR <lemma = lls/he/טבע> OR <lemma = wivu/he/טבע> OR <lemma = af/he/טבע>

If I left off any of the search terms then at least one of the references that was found in V3 was not found in V4. And if I had a few other resources I would have had to add another two Hebrew terms and six Aramaic terms for other morphologies.

Now, as a praise of V4, there were a few more references found in V4 that were not found in V3 and at first glance they appear to be valid.

Now, as a criticism of V4..

First, I have not been able to find any information on the Info page of a resource that indicates what morphology it uses. In that case I must search for all twelve morphologies (one Syriac, six Aramaic, and five Hebrew). And if they ever add morphological tagging for Ugaritic or other languages that may have cognates... or other resources with a different kind of morphology...

Second, NOTHING I tried, even going to the resource and right clicking on a word and performing a morphological search, produced hits in the Targums and Cairo Geniza documents with the single exception of the use of טבע without any kind of field information. And that only found references in two resources rather than fifteen (understandable because the root form of the word would have to be in the document).

Third, while I can understand the lemma:language search term requirements and morphological search term requirements (but don't like them), I do not understand why I would have to add טבע OR ܛܒܥ OR root:ܛܒܥ to find some of the references.

I really hope that Bob or Bradley are reading this thread. This has made what was a simple procedure in V3, and arguably the core functionality of the Logos software, COMPLETELY unusable in V4. As soon as the Leiden Peshitta and Samaritan Pentateuch arrive Big Smile we may have to add three more morphologies (a Syriac one for the Peshitta and both Hebrew and Aramaic for the Pentateuch) in our searches.

I have used Logos software for nine years now. I have actually been on the Beta bandwagon the entire time and have never had real complaints with there software even with the Beta versions. I was one of the first to download and use a new Beta. That is until V4. I have been a bit busy and did not Beta test this version. The ONLY thing I can say at this point is that I am glad I just upgraded the engine to see how V4 handled and did not pay to upgrade my bundle yet. I know Bob has said that there are improvements happening over the next few months, some of which I feel are critical, but because of these issues in searching I have no choice but to remain a V3 user. And if the issues in searching are not fixed in the future then I will have to remain a V3 user until Logos no longer produces the resources I need in a form that will work with V3. At which time I will have to find some other alternative.

Wow, two complaining posts in the last two days, one about V4 and one about the forums. I really hate doing that and sounding so negative, and in the past have not where Logos is concerned, but issues with the forums and issues with V4 are really piling up with regard to the way that I use the product. So I apologize for the rant and hope that Logos takes to heart what is really meant to be a constructive request.

---

James W Bennett

http://syriac.tara-lu.com/

Posts 32
Adam Couturier | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Nov 11 2009 1:18 PM

James, I feel your pain.  I have been apart of the beta team, and it has been a great process.  I use 4.0 now daily, but searching for lemma and root, has been something I have only been able to do in 3.0.  I have been trying to do a search on שׂפה but have been unsuccessful in 4.0.  I too am hoping this gets better.

Posts 8148
LogosEmployee

James W Bennett:

I really hope that Bob or Bradley are reading this thread. 

I haven't yet... the length is starting to get a little intimidating. But I have bookmarked it to come back to (when things settle down a little bit around here). Sorry that I can't give you a response right away.

Posts 25378
Forum MVP
Dave Hooton | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Nov 11 2009 2:59 PM

James W Bennett:
Wow, two complaining posts in the last two days

There were some confusing changes during beta with regard to lemma: generation (after a word is selected) where we began to see greek:word, hebrew:word and lemma:greek:word, lemma:hebrew:word. I haven't had time to thoroughly investigate the various usages, especially the implications for Basic Search. But I share your concern about the complications of searching in L4 versus L3, and there are some fundamental issues I have raised elsewhere (plus others I still have to document!). The lack of documentation exacerbates matters as we simply don't know whether an issue is a BUG or a design feature!

Hopefully, Bradley will resolve these issues or accept them as Suggestions  eg. why have root: apparently serving the same purpose as lemma: in different resources.

Dave
===

Windows 10 & Android 8

Posts 433
Vincent Setterholm | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Nov 11 2009 8:42 PM

Hi, James. I'll see if I can shed a little light on this thread.

1) In the Peshitta, 'root' and 'lemma' are not interchangeable, and a root search and a lemma search will return different hits, whether you're in LDLS 3 or Logos 4. Root is a superset of a number of lemmas that are derived from the same set of consonants (and are etymologically related - there are some roots that are spelled the same but still represent different sets of words). So if you want to do a search that will find both verbs and the nouns derived from the same consonants, using the root field is the way to do. We don't (yet) have root data in any of our Hebrew Bibles, which is why trying a root search on אבל was futile.

2) When I open a Search panel and choose 'morph' in the upper right, with the settings: "Search All Passages in All Resources with Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon Morphology (CAL) Aramaic Morphology for" and lemma:טבה in the search box, I get 76 hits in 73 verses. That is the same number of hits I get by selecting one of those hits, right clicking it, selecting the lemma for and searching the entire library (though a whole library search there sorts by 'articles' instead of 'verses').

However, looking at your original search, I am guessing that you are not looking at instances of the lemma טבה (noun: goodness) at all, but rather instances of the lemma טב (adjective: good) which sometimes has a surface form of טבה and a homograph number and part of speech tags attached to the lemma to distinguish it from some other words in the CAL database that are spelled the same way. In other words, the hits you were looking at were false positives for טב A 0.

That said, you did help uncover a real bug that I've just reported to development: apparently for the 2 databases we have which use part of speech as part of their homograph distinction (most of our databases just use lemma + a number, if needed, no part of speech), there are some problems with the Morph search function. If you just choose 'search entire library' or 'search this resource' you'll get the hits properly, but we have to fix the Morph search for the CAL Targums and WIVU.

3) The advice to click on the encircled 'i' to see what fields and data types are present in a resource is a good one for seeing if a lexicon has field tagged head-words, but it is not a consistent indicator of if a text such as a Bible contains lemma tags. Only certain interlinears show a lemma field on that screen. So the best way to see if an ancient text has lemma tags is to open it up and right click a word. In the case of the Old Syriac Gospels, they do not contain lemma (or for that matter root) tags at all.

Or if you want to know specifically which morphology a particular resource uses, open a Morph search, and select the specific resource you want to search: only the morphologies that are in that book will appear as options in the morphology picker drop-down.

4) Libronix DLS 3 was like a fishing with a purse net. Sure, you get every fish in the school, but you also catch all the dolphins and sharks that were eating the fish, along with a few sea turtles that happened to be passing by. Logos 4 is more like using dolphin- and shark-safe towing lines so that you only get the fish you're hunting for.

To take up your first example of אבל, in the HALOT lexicon the consonants אבל represent 8 different words. And since one of the meanings is 'brook', it is used in up to another 5 or 6 'lemmas' for proper place names.  Different lexicons and databases may subdivide the consonants into a very different number of entries. They may even spell words completely differently.

It's fair to say that the design of Logos 4 assumes that if you want to find all the instances of 'to mourn' you don't want to waste time sorting through instances of 'to dry', 'brook',  'canal', 'truly', 'but', or 'no/not' (the only way it is used in the Hebrew/Canaanite inscriptions we have so far), let alone an Aramaic personal name found only in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan or an 'entrance-way' from a Hatrean text.

5) Even where two different corpuses share the same word, they may spell it differently (especially with regard to vowels, but sometimes consonants as well) and may have different homograph numbers. So אבל 2 in the Andersen-Forbes text means can be used for negation, but this is אבל 5 in the Hebrew and Canaanite inscriptions, but in the Westminster text, which has vowels in its lemmas, and thus less need for homograph numbers, it is simply אֲבָל .

So in Logos 4, there are still lemma field tags on head words in lexicons and glossaries, and these function the same as in LDLS 3. But lemmas in analyzed texts have become data type references that combine the exact spelling of the word (vowel-sensitive) with the corpus that it came from and, where necessary, a number and/or a part of speech tag to distinguish it from other lemmas with the same spelling. This tight integration of data tremendously reduces the chance of false positives in your searching.

Part of the confusion of 'lemma:' is that in Logos 4 that operator is overloaded - which is developer-speak for saying it does different things in different contexts. In the context of a Basic search, it is looking for text that has a field tag of 'lemma', and so it hits head words in lexicons where the surface text itself is the 'lemma', and has been tagged as such. Whereas in the Morph search, lemma: is performing a data type search, which has a very different internal syntax. It's getting the corpus information from morphology you've chosen in the Morph search dialog and constructing a search not on surface forms, but on tags underneath the surface forms of things like Bibles.

6) This is why you don't want to combine 'lemma:' and 'syriac:' in the Morph search, because this textbox is creating a data type search, not a field search. We probably could add some smarts so that if someone typed syriac: into the Morph search we just threw that part of the data away. But really, there is no reason for you to be typing 'syriac:' anyway, even in a Basic search. Simply typing in the Syriac script is all that is needed to inform the application that you want Syriac results, so it doesn't surprise me that the developers didn't write special code for getting rid of input that is never actually needed. root:syriac:ܐܒܠ and root:ܐܒܠ will return the exact same hits. (We do not yet have root data type references, so even in the Morph search, root: is simply a field search. But since some databases, Peshitta included, do have root homographs with numbers to distinguish them, in time we'll probably end up supporting roots in the same way we support lemmas, especially once we have roots in a Hebrew text.)

7) The current Morph panel with its lemma-picker can actually save you a lot of time sorting through bad hits. You can see, for example, without even running a search that אבל is not used in the Hebrew and Canaanite Inscriptions, the Aramaic Inscriptions, or the Targums to mean the verb 'to mourn'. In some cases, if the spellings of words are similar, but not the same between languages or databases, examining the lemma picker can help you find the right word without wasting time on bad searches. For example, if you're studying ברא  but it doesn't show up in the lemma picker for the Targums, then delete the א scroll down and you'll find 'create' listed under ברי. So for your examples of wanting to search Hebrew, Aramaic, Ugaritic and Syriac all at once, well, excepting those very few words that are actually in common across all of those languages and don't also have an undue amount of false positives from homographs, the present method of constructing each search from the lemma picker in the Morph panel may be a more fruitful use of time.

8) All that said, we may want to think about a way to do a greedy purse net search like LDLS 3. We'll be able to evaluate if that is necessary better once bugs like the Targum one you helped find are fixed and our customers have a chance to get to know the new system and see if it isn't more efficient for most real-world search scenarios.

Sorry that the reply is verbose - you raised a lot of very different (though related) issues. I hope this clears up some of the confusion, and thanks for helping us find a bug!

 

Posts 308
James W Bennett | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Nov 11 2009 11:08 PM

Hey Vincent, long time since we talked. Lets try this in small steps :)

1) Yeah, I'm aware of the SEDRA3 internal format and its use of root and lemma. I have a database of Aphrahat's demonstrations tagged to CAL and I am retagging to SEDRA3. Lots of fun!!!

2) Actually the word I selected was טבע (verb: sink; sink down). I also selected it very carefully since it has exact cognates in Aramaic, Hebrew, and Syriac. It also would not overwhelm with the number of hits that another word might. With that said, I know that words based upon that root exist in the Targums (e.g. TrgOnq Ex 15:4). But no matter what I have been unable to get hits for them except with a basic search for טבע and I know that is not correct. I do see in the morph dropdown an entry for lemma:טבע.2.V but this provides no hits. Is that the bug you are referring to?

So is the end result that I need to have a search term (selected from the dropdown for ease of use) for each morphology for each language that I want to search? So, for example, searching close cognates in Aramaic, Hebrew, and Syriac would require a Syriac term, four Aramaic (CAL, Inscriptions, SESB, and Westminster being the ones I am most likely to use), and three for Hebrew (Inscriptions, SESB, and Westminster being the ones I am most likely to use)? And I have to add a term on the morph page, move to the basic page, move back to the morph page, add the next term, ad nauseam? And if I want lexicons to appear in the same search go back to the basic page and add lemma with the Hebrew/Aramaic form to catch the majority of the lexicons, lexeme with the Hebrew/Aramaic form to catch the Qumran Sectarian Glosses, and lexeme or root with the Syriac form to catch the SEDRA3 lexicon? Oh, yes, and switch back between English, Hebrew, and Syriac keyboards while building this query? Is that what you are telling me?

I really hope not. Because with the number of word searches I do across Aramaic/Hebrew/Syriac (and I hope Arabic eventually and I hope several new Syriac sources soon :) this will become REALLY tedious REALLY fast. I would rather sort through the chaff caught in that less discriminating net than rebuild those kinds of queries time and again. Especially since I cannot just build the query and then just do a search and replace on the new lemma then paste the result into the search field because there might be required word form and morph information required for some of the databases to get a proper hit.

On a lighter note, the Leiden Peshitta is getting close. I may order a third copy just to see if I can get it over the top :) But, how long can we expect to wait after it leaves pre-pub? Can you give a rough estimate? 6 mos. 12 mos. 18 mos. etc... :)

---

James W Bennett

http://syriac.tara-lu.com/

Posts 433
Vincent Setterholm | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Nov 12 2009 12:44 AM

Ah, right, I somehow picked the wrong word from your second example (blasted homophones), but the bug is the same. That will be fixed.

Yes, right now the only way to get lemmas from multiple different databases is to run separate searches. This is, of course, no different from the way morph searching has always been done. If you wanted to find every infinitive absolute, you'd find yourself constructing a separate search for each morphology you were interested in.

Some of these changes were necessary to get good search results from interlinears and reverse interlinears. In Libronix 3, when homograph numbers were not tied so closely to the lexical forms and the corpuses they came from, you could get some really absurd search hits in certain interlinears and particularly Semitic reverse interlinears.

There's really nothing preventing us from creating a method for searching the new lemma data type references that ignores the corpus identifier and any homograph distinguishing fields. (It'd be like a feature that finds every verse 17 in every Bible, regardless of what versemap, book, or chapter the verse is in. It's just C#, we can do almost whatever we want.) There was a time in Libronix DLS when we did this sort of thing for Targums and Dead Sea Scrolls in the Bible Word Study report, but besides "very carefully selected" examples, a great deal of gibberish was returned - particularly when converting to or from any database that didn't provide vowel points for the lemmas. But I'll put in a case for providing such a syntax for brave souls like yourself.

Regarding the Leiden Peshitta, we are simply waiting on an updated version of Psalms from Leiden. I'm told the edits were done on paper first and are being transcribed into the digital files, but have no time estimate from Leiden for the completion. I haven't worried too much about it because pointed Syriac won't display right in WPF until .NET 4 is released, which is still a few months out, I think.

Posts 25378
Forum MVP
Dave Hooton | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Nov 12 2009 3:35 AM

VincentSetterholm:
I hope this clears up some of the confusion

Yes, it has helped me re-align my root thought processesSmile

Seriously, though:

  • With the comments in point 5) why do any Interlinears show a lemma field in Information? Which ones?
  • If it mattered you would want to combine lemma: with hebrew or aramaic, though (in Basic Search)? eg. lemma:hebrew:מלך vs. lemma:aramaic:מלך
  • The impact of having to perform different morphological searches is not so great for me, and the word picker does help me focus on a specific meaning in Hebrew and Aramaic for lemmas. But I tried h:mlk with Westminster morphology and chose hebrew:מָלְכ (reign). The search returned 0 results until I changed the morphology to A-F!?

Dave
===

Windows 10 & Android 8

Posts 308
James W Bennett | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Nov 17 2009 4:59 AM

Vincent,

I sent a bug report to tech support a few days ago about font display in Syriac resources and am including the text here:

Syriac is improperly displayed with Logos version 4. Final forms of letters appear to be used at the beginning and middle of a word as well as at the end of the word. This problem seems only to occur in all resources that I have found (Peshitta, SEDRA3, BDB, etc...) that contain Syriac except the two Old Syrian Gospels texts and only seems to occur when the letter has a diacritical or vowel point.

Is that what you meant by Syriac won't display right in WPF? Why are the Old Syriac resources displaying properly? If it is a Microsoft issue then I hope it gets fixed REAL soon. It is really getting to be a bit annoying reAdINg TexT tHaT lOOkS LIKe thIs Big Smile and I would hate to have to use L3 just to do my daily reading of Syriac. Although there are a few quirks that are irksome and will or can be resolved, I like the overall look and feel of V4.

---

James W Bennett

http://syriac.tara-lu.com/

Posts 308
James W Bennett | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Nov 17 2009 5:26 AM

Vincent,

You mentioned that is might be possible to provide a new method for searching lemma data type references. Would something like this make sense?

Right now when you convert a lemma search from a morph search to a basic search you get syntax like "<lemma = s3/syr/ܛܒܥ>". Could we have the ability to wildcard or provide a set for the morphology and maybe the language? Somethiing like "<lemma = */arc/ܛܒܥ>" or "<lemma = [af|in|lls|cal]/[arc|he]/טבע>". It wouldn't have to be regular expressions and could even just be expanded internally in to several searches if needed. And even if it were several searches it would still be light years beyond L3 in search speed.

I love the fact that you went to a pre-indexed method for the books, it just REALLY makes searching much faster. Now, if result display can just be improved I can have my results before I query them Wink

 

---

James W Bennett

http://syriac.tara-lu.com/

Posts 308
James W Bennett | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Dec 11 2009 4:32 AM

James W Bennett:
Is that what you meant by Syriac won't display right in WPF? Why are the Old Syriac resources displaying properly? If it is a Microsoft issue then I hope it gets fixed REAL soon.

Vincent or Bradley,

Based upon the bug report wiki this is apparently what Vincent was writing about. Do either of you know if MS has released a version of .NET 4.0 to Logos that has this problem fixed? The Oct .NET 4.0 Beta 2 does not seem to have fixed the problem and that has me concerned that they do not really have it on their radar scopes.

Since the majority of my work in Logos these days is with Syriac I am going back to V3 because I just can't read like this anymore. And that begs the question of whether the Leiden Peshitta, when it is released, will be usable in V3? Presuming of course that MS hasn't fixed the problem yet.

Thanks for your time!

---

James W Bennett

http://syriac.tara-lu.com/

Posts 433
Vincent Setterholm | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Dec 11 2009 5:50 PM

James W Bennett:
The Oct .NET 4.0 Beta 2 does not seem to have fixed the problem and that has me concerned that they do not really have it on their radar scopes.

We've been in communication with Microsoft on this. I've seen an internal build of .NET 4 that fixes every Syriac bug except the Syriac abbreviation mark, if I remember correctly.

The reason the Old Syrian Gospels look better than the Peshitta (to answer an older post of yours that I didn't run into), is that the main problems had to do with using the right glyph shape when vowels were present, and the OSG are unpointed and our Peshitta has vowels.

Posts 308
James W Bennett | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Feb 28 2010 4:38 PM

Vincent,

Can you confirm whether this is going to be fixed? MS released an RC version of .NET 4.0 about two weeks ago and it, at least on my system, still appears to have the same problems with Syriac. I know it is not your problem, but you (e.g. Logos) probably have just a little more pull with MS than me :)

---

James W Bennett

http://syriac.tara-lu.com/

Posts 1539
Terry Poperszky | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Feb 28 2010 5:16 PM

This thread make me soooo thankful for a greek NT. Big Smile

 

 

Posts 433
Vincent Setterholm | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Feb 28 2010 5:51 PM

Simply installing the new .NET RC won't fix the problems. Once .NET 4 is released, applications still need to be recompiled to use that version of .NET. We have an internal build of Shibboleth, for example, built with the .NET Beta 2 code, and the Syriac looks good (except for the abbreviation mark, which to my knowledge Microsoft hasn't fixed yet, but I haven't tested the latest drop). So we're probably looking at 4.0c or 4.0d, depending on how our development cycle coincides with the release of .NET 4 and how much work has to go into incorporating that into Logos 4. That's all outside my purview.

Posts 308
James W Bennett | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Feb 28 2010 6:57 PM

Thks...

---

James W Bennett

http://syriac.tara-lu.com/

Page 1 of 2 (28 items) 1 2 Next > | RSS