Inner workings of a Reverse Interlinear?

“Some people see things as they are and ask 'Why?' Others...” I'm probably, sadly, more in that first group.

Can't help but wonder how a reverse interlinear assigns 2 different transliterations for such similar constructions in Zc 5.2.

Even in English, “it's length” and “it's width” are similar; but it's harder to conceive of more similar constructions in Hebrew:

[Both are two syllable nominal constructions (both original N m.s. forms with cholem first vowel; that reduces to qamets chatuph with addition of a pronominal suffix), a begadkephat final noun consonant with daghesh lene following silent shewa, with added/same pronominal suffix and same mappiq in final heh suffix consonant, ultima accents; both even have a guttural second consonant and “distinctive” first consonants (aleph and a guttural), and both have, properly, short qamets chatuph first vowel in a closed, unaccented syllable (cf. Text converter shows 'orkah for “it's length,” for the full construction).]

Yet, although the RI slices and dices both in the same place, one is transliterated as qamets (incorrectly, in the RI and other places in Logos), and the other correctly as chatuph, in the first syllables.

The only difference is that the accent on the ultima is placed with the separated C, heh, for the “post-positive” accent, Vs. kept with the final qamets for the other. Does that impose some kind of unique syllable count rule in an algorithm? And how or why would that affect the reading of the qamets sign in the closed first syllable of either (both without first syllable tone-stress)?

Possibly if someone would kindly explain these different results, it would help me understand many such “differences” in BH transliterations in Logos.

Find more posts tagged with

Desktop App

Interlinears

Accepted answers

All comments

KeenUser

The transliteration simply can't be trusted. Algorithms or AI or however they produced the transliteration is just not accurate and it's expected to see many such issues.

Don Parker

Carry on, Keen User.

I think you caught my drift: I expect consistent answers from software and get surprised by different ones.

Nevertheless, I'm hoping someone might give me "a peek behind the curtain," to see what might possibly account for the variation here (and maybe elsewhere).

Sort of like asking Logos to "show their work" as to how they arrive at the (different) answers.

MJ. Smith

See

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1203126#Comment_1203126

There is no intention of specifically fixing kAI- or any other specific examples.
It is very likely that all of the problems you are seeing are purely due to the fact that we transliterate in isolation just the portion of the word that is represented in the interlinear column.
If a fix was to be made, it would be to transliterate that portion of the word in the context of the entire word.
Transliterating the entire word works correctly, as has been demonstrated in the Text Converter tool. If you find a complete word that isn't transliterated correct in the Text Converter tool, then that would be a separate bug that we would want to consider addressing.

Read the thread referenced then tell me whether or not that discussion explains this instance? I don't know Hebrew and therefore, don't know.

or as Perplexity says:

For serious BH work, treat Logos’ transliteration as a convenience for non‑specialists and always prioritize the pointed Hebrew text (plus independent grammatical knowledge) when distinguishing qamets from qamets ḥatuf. The consistent recommendation from advanced users is to double‑check any fine‑grained vocalic issues in the Hebrew itself or in grammars, not in the reverse interlinear transliteration layer.

Don Parker

Hi, MJ.

Always glad to hear from you; and so often extremely helpful.

Pretty sure the thread mentioned was one I started, quite a while ago. It was then that I realized indeed, "There is no intention of specifically fixing kAI- or any other specific examples." So although I could easily show examples of "a complete word that isn't transliterated correct in the Text Converter tool," I am similarly convinced that none of those would be seriously addressed, let alone changed. I accept "Bob" just as he is, as "Bob" is happy just as he is.

I'm just trying to "get to know 'Bob'" a bit more. We love Bob and accept Bob for all his quirks — at this point often epredictable, even amusing and sort of endearing. But when Bob does NOT act quirkily, that's a curiosity. It is "Fascinating!" (mimicking Mr. Spock trying to find some logic behind seeming illogic).

Perhaps, like one of Zechariah's visions, we can time-travel several days back and see a man reading a scroll (it's not flying), and with him is another ethereal man, "Bob." The man points to the Hebrew word-form for "it's length" and Bob pronounces, with a predicable and noticeable lisp, //Ar-kA.// Then pointing just 3 word(-form)s later in the verse, Bob pronounces the Hebrew word-form for "it's length," but this time loudly, clearly and distinctly //rOw-kA — even though both word-forms have, as an initial syllable, an identical unaccented CVC, with the same vowel in the middle.

Bob "makes me look."

"How can I understand unless someone guides me?"

Don Parker

Oopsie, mental typo, second word obviously should be "its width," (but the "vision" took place at night and I was groggy) hope that doesn't distract from basic Q: If someone always reads/pronounces same thing (although here pretty much same thing) one way and then seemingly out of nowhere, another, don't your ears perk up a bit?

Might it not be interesting to find out if variety was purposeful and meaningful in some way?

Don Parker

MJ,
Maybe I should also more directly answer your Q: "whether or not that discussion explains this instance," (whereas my prior response was more reformulation of my initial Q). Answer: No.

There were several issues in that earlier thread, including the distinction between qamets and (qamets) chatuph in different biblical uses, as well as different/inconsistent transliterations appearing at various places throughout Logos. Maybe even hoped to get some new insights (as I had been so long removed from any biblical studies). Also, back then, I naively thought Logos developers might have the same attitude toward fixing transliteration errors as they show toward fixing typos in resources and providing frequent updates to the software.

This particular instance pertains to an identical structure, an initial syllable, in two words [plural], as processed by a single resource (the RI). Not is it about the distinction that I or others might make or where and which is in/correct or even whether consistency is ever desirable.
The question is HOW a single processing resource/RI can come up with different "outputs" when crunching the same data. I guess I also am assuming (always dangerous, right) specific processing instructions PLUS some corollary instruction [that's the issue here] must account for those, given the processing is faced with a binary choice.

The RI is "crunching," for both word-forms, an unaccented Consonant-Vowel-Consonant first syllable structure.
[So, even a smaller unit of analysis then the slicing & dicing of word-forms in the RI]. For Hebrew and this example, the Vowel sigla "output" is either long OR short, and that would be expected to be the same for the same vowel in the same environment, barring some other determinative factors.
But for the two words in this verse that structure is output one time with a long and another time with a short vowel. I'm inquiring, "What is the additional factor (presumably type &/or placement of an accent elsewhere, or perhaps the slightly different representations of the same pronominal suffix on these two words within RI, or, unlikely, an effect of how the RI tracks vowels in relation to different 'gutturals')?" It's just a bit of a head-scratcher.
[On a broad scale, I'm also assuming that the RI is not considering historical/diachronic or social/dialectical divergences that might explain the variety of output. I'm also assuming the RI is not wearing a mood ring that is blue one moment and red the next, so that it produces different answers to what is essentially the same question.]

PS Q: Whoa, Is an underlying assumption of mine incorrect? Is it possible that the RI is not actually processing any Hebrew text, but merely slicing up a pre-transliterated text??