Tagging of "Nineveh" in Nahum 1-2

The screenshot below shows occurrences of "Nineveh" in Nahum 1-2 in the NIV84 and the corresponding rendering in the NRSV

It looks as though there is some tagging missing in NIV84

Nah 1:1 - both NIV84 and MRSV have Nineveh tagged as Place -> Nineveh
Nah 1:8 - the NIV84 doesn't have Nineveh tagged at all but NRSV has "adversaries" tagged as Place -> Nineveh
Nah 1:11 - the NIV84 doesn't have Nineveh tagged at all but NRSV has "you" tagged as Place -> Nineveh
Nah 1:14 - the NIV84 doesn't have Nineveh tagged at all but NRSV has the first "you" tagged as People -> Ninevites (Nahum)
Nahum 2:1 - the NIV84 doesn't have Nineveh tagged at all but NRSV has "you" tagged as People -> Ninevites (Nahum)
Nah 2:8 - both NIV84 and MRSV have Nineveh tagged as Place -> Nineveh

The NIV2011 is tagged (or not tagged) identically to the NIV84

Is this simply some tagging that has been missed or is there some other explanation?

Thanks, Graham

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

NB.Mick

Is this simply some tagging that has been missed or is there some other explanation?

Graham,

my impression so far was that Logos doesn't do the tagging based on the dozens of English bibles, but based on the underlying Greek/Hebrew text. However, there seems to be some tagging based on the English that swaps over (maybe an algorithm which puts the tagging into an English translation if it uses the exactly same word as a "reference" translation such as LEB or ESV - the latter coming from the RSV tradition) ... So I'd think the lack of tagging would be resolved the moment we get the OT RI for NIV2011 - but I may be totally wrong here. Maybe someone from Logos will help.

Mick

Graham Criddle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/440228#Comment_440228

Hi Mick

Thanks for this

my impression so far was that Logos doesn't do the tagging based on the dozens of English bibles, but based on the underlying Greek/Hebrew text. However, there seems to be some tagging based on the English that swaps over (maybe an algorithm which puts the tagging into an English translation if it uses the exactly same word as a "reference" translation such as LEB or ESV - the latter coming from the RSV tradition) .

This does seem to make sense from what we are seeing - also might throw some light on a discussion that Dave and I are having at http://community.logos.com/forums/p/62227/440205.aspx#440205

Looking at the references above:

The ESV has the same tagging as NRSV except for no tagging in 1:8
The LEB has the same tagging as the NIV

So the LEB could indeed be the base for non-RI translations which just leaves the difference between ESV and NRSV at 1:8 unexplained!

Maybe someone from Logos will help.

Hoping so[:)]

Graham

Rick Brannan

Hi Graham

Is this simply some tagging that has been missed or is there some other explanation?

The NRSV has a reverse interlinear available for the OT; the NIV84 and NIV2011 do not have OT reverse interlinears, nor does the LEB.

So the differences you're seeing are reflective of the differences of data we can apply (is the data applied based on the verse, or based on a specific word in an underlying original language text?)

Good news: We're on track for reverse interlinears for LEB OT and NIV2011 OT to be completed in Q1 2013. (no, really!). I'm sorry I can't say the same about the NIV84, but our hands are a bit tied on that one.

Graham Criddle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/440264#Comment_440264

Hi Rick

Thanks for responding - appreciated

The NRSV has a reverse interlinear available for the OT; the NIV84 and NIV2011 do not have OT reverse interlinears, nor does the LEB.

Understood

So the differences you're seeing are reflective of the differences of data we can apply (is the data applied based on the verse, or based on a specific word in an underlying original language text?)

Are you able to expand on that a little further?

Is the NRSV/ESV tagging based on their RIs and the NIV/LEB tagging based on something else?
Why doesn't the ESV tag Nineveh in Nahum 1:8?
Why does the NIV have some references to Nineveh tagged and not others?

Good news: We're on track for reverse interlinears for LEB OT and NIV2011 OT to be completed in Q1 2013. (no, really!).

This is really good news[Y][:)]

I'm sorry I can't say the same about the NIV84, but our hands are a bit tied on that one.

Understood

Thanks, Graham

Milford Charles Murray

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/440264#Comment_440264

Good news:

Peace, Rick! Thanks much for posting! I don't see your Logos "badge" this morning. I'm assuming you - for one reason or another - chose to post privately! Fine with me! *smile*

Rick Brannan (Logos)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/440267#Comment_440267

Hi Graham.

Thanks for responding - appreciated

No worries, thanks for the questions!

Are you able to expand on that a little further?

Is the NRSV/ESV tagging based on their RIs and the NIV/LEB tagging based on something else?

Why doesn't the ESV tag Nineveh in Nahum 1:8?

Why does the NIV have some references to Nineveh tagged and not others?

Not really. I only know generalities of non-reverse-interlinear based stuff. I believe it is a confluence of a reference, things we know (via Biblical people/places/things) to be in that reference, and key words that occur in the translation of that reference.

Referent annotation is based on the original languages; what appears in a given text is (I'm deducing) based on the alignment between the original language and the translation.

That's all I know. I don't know how that maps/applies to your specific questions.

I don't see your Logos "badge" this morning. I'm assuming you - for one reason or another - chose to post privately! Fine with me! *smile*

Yep, I was at home, where I am usually logged in with my personal account instead of my employee account.

Graham Criddle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/440364#Comment_440364

Not really. I only know generalities of non-reverse-interlinear based stuff. I believe it is a confluence of a reference, things we know (via Biblical people/places/things) to be in that reference, and key words that occur in the translation of that reference.

Referent annotation is based on the original languages; what appears in a given text is (I'm deducing) based on the alignment between the original language and the translation.

Thanks Rick - that's useful to know particularly the comments about referent annotations.

Appreciate it if you could have a look at the discussion from http://community.logos.com/forums/p/62227/440205.aspx#440205 to see if you can help us understand what we are seeing in the "Referred To" section of the Bible Facts tool[:)]

Thanks, Graham

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/440264#Comment_440264

So the differences you're seeing are reflective of the differences of data we can apply (is the data applied based on the verse, or based on a specific word in an underlying original language text?)

See http://community.logos.com/forums/p/62227/440451.aspx#440451

I'm confused and disappointed.