Search

Search in sorted by
  • Re: Possible Revocalization/Repointing of Gen. 49:24 -- A Lexham Issue

    [quote user="Lee"] What is the underlying pointing in Jerusalem Crown ? ... [/quote] [Edit: Woops, I thought you were asking what the 'point' of the Jerusalem Crown was. The Crown has מִשָּׁ֥ם. Same as L.] Jerusalem Crown is based on Aleppo instead of Leningradensis. For the missing portions of Aleppo's Torah, some use was made of hand-written notes
    Posted to General by Vincent Setterholm on Wed, Mar 26 2014
  • Re: Possible Revocalization/Repointing of Gen. 49:24 -- A Lexham Issue

    [quote user="David Paul"] My point in bringing this up is that LEB and LHI, both Lexham resources, don't correspond on this point. [/quote] I'm not sure what resource versions you're looking at, since your quote from LHI doesn't match mine (an old Libronix build?). But in the current versions of those resources, both LEB and LHI render this as 'there
    Posted to General by Vincent Setterholm on Wed, Mar 26 2014
  • Re: Typos in BHS

    Re: 'typo'. To quote the Princess Bride, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." :) I'm suggesting that it is an orthographic variant. Hebrew is full of those. You can spell 'Moses' without a holem at all, and it isn't a 'typo' - the holem can be 'invisible' when next to a sin or shin dot, following one orthographic
    Posted to Logos 5 by Vincent Setterholm on Thu, Mar 20 2014
  • Re: Typos in BHS

    Leaving aside that I could find fifty contemporary language references on my shelf that don't follow the BHS convention, let me ask you this: Would you still advise making the change in the BHS SESB if as a result you could no longer right-click the affected words, run a search on your entire library, and expect to see ANY hits outside of that Bible
    Posted to Logos 5 by Vincent Setterholm on Thu, Mar 20 2014
  • Re: Typos in BHS

    [quote user="Lee"] But some of the thinking, I'll just say I'm not in agreement with. [/quote] OK, I'll try to make my thinking a bit clearer. Flip to Google and enter the following searches: מִצְוֹת מִצְוֺת The first one gets 'about 81,400' hits, the second gets 1,230 hits. Both mark orders (U+05D5, U+05B9 and U+05D5, U+05BA) are technically supported
    Posted to Logos 5 by Vincent Setterholm on Thu, Mar 20 2014
  • Re: Typos in BHS

    Sorry, Lee. I mistakenly thought you'd find the details interesting. I didn't mean to give the impression that I was minimizing your request. I did say I'd look into it.
    Posted to Logos 5 by Vincent Setterholm on Thu, Mar 20 2014
  • Re: Typos in BHS

    It's not a typo. The typographic distinction between holem-waw and waw+holem, where the latter has the holem dot shifted slightly to the left, is an optional convention. There was no support for it until Unicode 5, and as such it has some compatibility issues (not just at the level of some fonts not supporting the new holem code point - SBL Hebrew does
    Posted to Logos 5 by Vincent Setterholm on Wed, Mar 19 2014
  • Re: Hebrew Pronunciation Update

    [quote user="DAL"] Don't get too over excited on this update because it pretty much got worse... [/quote] What an extraordinary exegesis of my previous post. :) In any event, we're at ~90% now. I've received audio back for all the Hebrew sound clips. So we're just waiting on 1) the sound clips that accompany the documentation of the pronunciation system
    Posted to Logos 5 by Vincent Setterholm on Mon, Feb 24 2014
  • Re: When is the release day of the Hebrew Pronunication?

    Batman, See my post here: http://community.logos.com/forums/p/78483/548756.aspx#548756 I'll update that thread with the latest info.
    Posted to Logos 5 by Vincent Setterholm on Mon, Feb 24 2014
  • Re: BHS and BHW

    This is the SESB version to keep : LLS:1.0.204 2009-03-12T22:17:45Z BHSSESB.lbxlls hide the other: LLS:BHSSESB2 2006-12-16T00:22:51Z BHSSESB2.lbxlls I still hold some hope that someday we might be able to update BHS/WIVU, particularly since it is still in the base packages - if you hide it, you'll never see if it gets updated. I just wouldn't use that
    Posted to Logos 5 by Vincent Setterholm on Tue, Feb 11 2014
  • Re: BUG: The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (Transcriptions)

    Unless they roll back to a previous version, it probably won't be before sometime after 5.2a ships, as there are other improvements being made to this resource for 5.2a. But they may come up with some stop-gap measure.
    Posted to General by Vincent Setterholm on Mon, Feb 10 2014
  • Re: BHS and BHW

    [quote user="David Paul"] Well, I would have to say that your explanation is much clearer than mud! Thanks for taking the time. I have a few other questions, but I won't burden you with them now. They would probably be easier to answer in a classroom or over a beer, anyway. The non-BHS that I tend to use has Westminster 4.2. Where does that fit in the
    Posted to Logos 5 by Vincent Setterholm on Mon, Feb 10 2014
  • Re: BHS and BHW

    [quote user="David Paul"] So, this is what I'm noticing. The BHS's (4.2, 4.0, WIVU) that I have, which aren't really BHS's, all say they are BHS when I quote them. If they aren't BHS, shouldn't this be adjusted? The 4.18 seems to be the only one to ID itself as BHW...which brings me to my next ... Westmonasteriensis??? Seriously? Not only is this typical
    Posted to Logos 5 by Vincent Setterholm on Mon, Feb 10 2014
  • Re: BHS and BHW

    The rundown is this: version 1 of the Westminster database was basically the BHS. Being the first edition, there may have been some transcription errors, but the goal of that edition was to faithfully reproduce the text of the BHS. Starting at version 2, however, the goal shifted to being an accurate transcription of the manuscript that BHS is based
    Posted to Logos 5 by Vincent Setterholm on Mon, Feb 10 2014
  • Re: BUG: The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (Transcriptions)

    I didn't want to make a guess without looking at the files because there's a couple things that could theoretically have caused this problem. But it appears that, in a recent round of maintenance on this resource, the paleo-Hebrew font formatting tags were stripped out by mistake. I'm talking with the team that works on this resource to see about getting
    Posted to General by Vincent Setterholm on Mon, Feb 10 2014
  • Re: BUG: The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (Transcriptions)

    [quote user="Martin Grainger Dean"]Bump. Vincent are you with us? :)[/quote] Nope. I'm down in the Dominican Republic, chilling with humpback whales and pelicans. Flying back tomorrow.
    Posted to General by Vincent Setterholm on Thu, Feb 6 2014
  • Re: A proper aleph?

    Right, there was a period of time when our only transliteration font had used the wrong Unicode code point for the aleph and ayin transliteration marks. At the time it looked right, but when we switched fonts, it suddenly looked wrong. They should be corrected in all the resources created during that period of time. Luckily the incorrect marks (the
    Posted to General by Vincent Setterholm on Fri, Jan 24 2014
  • Re: Interlinear button missing with BHS

    Daniel, check if you have the resource LHI - Lexham Hebrew-English Interlinear.
    Posted to Logos 4 by Vincent Setterholm on Fri, Jan 24 2014
  • Re: Hebrew question - Length of Anger

    I guess I'll bite. patience, forbearance.
    Posted to General by Vincent Setterholm on Mon, Jan 20 2014
  • Re: Hebrew question: Pronunciation of gemination

    I don't have a slam-dunk way of shooting that idea down, but I'm inclined to think it's not the case. The Septuagint uses phi for the final pe, for example in Ιωσηφ. It seems like Greek translators would hear 'php' as two distinct sounds and represent that as phi-pi in proper nouns, and this doesn't occur. Now 'φπ' might have been an awkward combination
    Posted to General by Vincent Setterholm on Fri, Jan 17 2014
Page 4 of 23 (444 items) « First ... < Previous 2 3 4 5 6 Next > ... Last » |