All who have Scholar's Silver and above have a license for the BHS with Richter Morphology with a promise to deliver the volume when available. Has anyone briefed us lately on an expected delivery date?
Thanks for bringing this up! I only found out about this resource yesterday (when I happened to look at the Update Chart), and, like you, I wondered when "soon" was, but also about the morphology itself. Do you -- or anyone else reading this -- know of somewhere where the differences between different morphologies are described?
Richter's impressive project was described at length in:
Rechenmacher, H. and van der Merwe, C. H. J., The Contibution of Wolfgang Richter to Current Developments in the Study of Biblical Hebrew. J Semitic Studies (Spring 2005) 50 (1): 59-82.
Thanks, but I was more interested of "in short" than "at length". [:)] Not 5 lines short, but considerably shorter than 24p. At least at this stage. Also, I'm looking for a comparison of all Logos morphologies, rather than a description of one of them.
Do you -- or anyone else reading this -- know of somewhere where the differences between different morphologies are described?
No I don't, but I found an interesting 12 page read on the issues it seems Richter was trying to address here: http://www.ajol.info/index.php/actat/article/viewFile/5462/29600 While not saying so, I assume this refers to the 'morphology' Richter developed.
Here is a quote of the relevant passage:
Richter (1978, 1979 and 1980) proposed an entirelyredefined theoretical frame of reference for the description of BH grammarat the level of word, phrase and clause. Richter did not disregard existinginsights into the grammar of BH, but argued, very much in the spirit ofthe structuralist paradigm, that current grammatical categories need to bescrutinised in terms of the distribution of the BH data at hand. The only wayto have effective access to this data was to develop a linguistic database, andfor this purpose Richter divided the entire BH corpus into clauses.A key notion in Richter’s clause syntax was that of “valency”. The valencyof a verb determines the number and type of constituents a clause mayhave, e.g. “sleep” has a valency of 1 since it requires only a subject in orderto form a full sentence, “see” has a valency of 2 since it requires a subjectand an object. It was this element of meaning that Richter used as the maincriterion for the identification of verbal clauses in his database. In thisregard, Richter was in step with insights from the field of general linguistics,viz. syntax without information from the lexicon is not possible.
Richter’s approach was not well-received by scholars in the field of Old Testamentstudies. Most of the criticism from these scholars was not justifiedbecause they did not fully understand what Richter had tried to accomplish.However, there is also justifiable criticism that can be broughtagainst Richter. Nevertheless, apart from providing the impetus for arange of research programmes, he made an important contribution as far asthe implementation of insights generated in terms of the structuralist paradigmto the description of BH as a non-spoken language is concerned, e.g.• He provided a solid foundation for the redefinition of BH word classesand sentence constituents in terms of distributional criteria;• He paved the way for more clearly defined levels of linguistic descriptionin the field of study;• He illustrated the importance of considering some of the syntactic featuresof a verb in the composition of a lexicon.
Do you -- or anyone else reading this -- know of somewhere where the differences between different morphologies are described? No I don't, but I found an interesting 12 page read on the issues it seems Richter was trying to address here: http://www.ajol.info/index.php/actat/article/viewFile/5462/29600 While not saying so, I assume this refers to the 'morphology' Richter developed. Here is a quote of the relevant passage: Richter (1978, 1979 and 1980) proposed an entirelyredefined theoretical frame of reference for the description of BH grammarat the level of word, phrase and clause. Richter did not disregard existinginsights into the grammar of BH, but argued, very much in the spirit ofthe structuralist paradigm, that current grammatical categories need to bescrutinised in terms of the distribution of the BH data at hand. The only wayto have effective access to this data was to develop a linguistic database, andfor this purpose Richter divided the entire BH corpus into clauses.A key notion in Richter’s clause syntax was that of “valency”. The valencyof a verb determines the number and type of constituents a clause mayhave, e.g. “sleep” has a valency of 1 since it requires only a subject in orderto form a full sentence, “see” has a valency of 2 since it requires a subjectand an object. It was this element of meaning that Richter used as the maincriterion for the identification of verbal clauses in his database. In thisregard, Richter was in step with insights from the field of general linguistics,viz. syntax without information from the lexicon is not possible. Richter’s approach was not well-received by scholars in the field of Old Testamentstudies. Most of the criticism from these scholars was not justifiedbecause they did not fully understand what Richter had tried to accomplish.However, there is also justifiable criticism that can be broughtagainst Richter. Nevertheless, apart from providing the impetus for arange of research programmes, he made an important contribution as far asthe implementation of insights generated in terms of the structuralist paradigmto the description of BH as a non-spoken language is concerned, e.g.• He provided a solid foundation for the redefinition of BH word classesand sentence constituents in terms of distributional criteria;• He paved the way for more clearly defined levels of linguistic descriptionin the field of study;• He illustrated the importance of considering some of the syntactic featuresof a verb in the composition of a lexicon.
This refers to his grammar in three volumes. His morphology is based on the grammar but includes much much more. If Logos contracted the whole database, expect the ability to search noun patterns, Aramaisms, morpho syntactic features and practically anything you can think about...
Richter's impressive project was described at length in: Thanks, but I was more interested of "in short" than "at length". Not 5 lines short, but considerably shorter than 24p. At least at this stage. Also, I'm looking for a comparison of all Logos morphologies, rather than a description of one of them.
Thanks, but I was more interested of "in short" than "at length". Not 5 lines short, but considerably shorter than 24p. At least at this stage. Also, I'm looking for a comparison of all Logos morphologies, rather than a description of one of them.
You also need a subscription to the journal in order to read the article or else purchase one-time access.
That's good to know. There is precious little about this I could find online.
\You also need a subscription to the journal in order to read the article or else purchase one-time access.
George,
Email me \
Has, anyone heard or read anything about The BHS with Richter Morphology, recently?
I see that Richter was omitted from the new Logos 5 packages. I for one relied on the Logos promise to deliver the Richter morphology. It seemed (and still seems) as a promising new step for Hebrew morphological tagging.
Is this the way it works? You promise something and once you get paid you forget to deliver? a bit disappointing...
I don't have any update, but it looks to me like it's still there:
I would still expect it. But I suspect that ... Vincent answered below.
The BHt is included in some of the larger Logos 5 base packages, but when we deliver it, anyone who ordered it as part of a Logos 4 package will receive it also, regardless of whether or not their Logos 5 package includes that title.
The analyzed text is nearly ready and I expect this project to be at the top of my tasklist very soon. Sorry for the delay!
Thank you. I apologize. I expected it to be part of the equivalent package to the package I own and with all this complaining going on I jumped into conclusions. Pardon!
Vincent, the Catholic comparison chart shows Richter Hebrew Morphology and WIVU Hebrew Morphology, but doesn't mention BHS anywhere that I can see. Is that correct?
See my answer here.
Short answer:
The WIVU Hebrew Morphology is on the BHS, the proper name of the Richter Hebrew Morphology is Biblia Hebraica transcripta (BHt), which for the 39 books they share in common, is closely related to the BHS, being based on the same manuscript. (BHt also includes Sirach, which is not in the BHS.)
Long answer:
Excepting the Dead Sea Scrolls biblical materials, all of our Hebrew Bibles (LHB, Westminster, AFAT, BHS SESB, BHS/WIVU, BHt (excepting Sirach), the BHQ fascicles) are based on the same manuscript, Codex Leningradensis (AKA B19 AKA L) - the oldest complete Hebrew Bible. This is the same Bible/manuscript that the print Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS) is based on (as well as some other print editions, such as BHL). There are slight differences between the different print and digital editions of L when it comes to whether or not to correct things that look like scribal errors in L. The print BHS makes a few more corrections than, say, the Westminster text (which sticks very close to L, though it footnotes places where L may be defective). The different digital editions have some additional differences in how K/Q readings are handled (as interlinear runs, in note pop-ups, only following the written K text, keeping the K text as it exists in the manuscript, but sometimes analyzing the text according to a preferred Q reading, etc.) - in most some cases these differences reflect the source files we received, while some are happenstances based on our implementation of the source files.
Some digital texts have called themselves 'BHS' in the past, but really aren't. The older Westminster editions all had BHS in the title. At some point early in their history, the Westminster text may have matched the BHS, but for a long time now they've moved their text closer to L. Sometimes you'll hear their text called the WLC (Westminster Leningrad Codex), but I believe this refers to a particular view of their data that doesn't include things like Kethiv reconstructions, but rather just contains the data in the manuscript of L. Future versions of the Westminster text will likely be named BHW to avoid any confusion (and to avoid paying an extra royalty for the use of the name 'BHS' on a text that isn't really the BHS). Even some newer texts that originate from the German Bible Society and call themselves BHS may include a few very minor corrections that aren't in any print edition of BHS, though they may show up in BHQ.
What makes the BHS one of the Bibles of choice amongst scholars is not primarily the text (though it is a good one, most of editions of L are very nice in their own way), but the critical apparatus and the Massorah - all the marginal notes and footnotes.
The only complete edition that includes the apparatus (and the in-text indicators for looking up information in the apparatus) is the BHS SESB. This does not include the Massorah that is found in the print BHS. The BHQ fascicles are a work in progress, but they do contain the Massorah. (I think there are also Massorah notes in the print BHS that do not come from L, but from other manuscript traditions. I haven't dug into BHQ to know precisely which Massorah they are reproducing - only those from L or from the broader tradition. But eventually there will be a complete set of Massorah notes of some kind in the BHQ - and if I remember right, they're translating that material so that non-specialists can access it. Nice!)
Whew. Well that about covers it for me. [:S]
Wow! You have time to write a post like that on a day like this?[*]
I only needed some correct information for my threads about errors in the comparison charts.[:)] Nevertheless, I appreciate the information!
The BHt is included in some of the larger Logos 5 base packages, but when we deliver it, anyone who ordered it as part of a Logos 4 package will receive it also, regardless of whether or not their Logos 5 package includes that title. The analyzed text is nearly ready and I expect this project to be at the top of my tasklist very soon. Sorry for the delay!
Almost a year has gone by. Any news?
Hi, David. I thought about you an hour ago. I hope you saw Select Works of Moses Maimonides (6 vols.).
Thank you fgh for bringing this to my attention. I bid of course.
Any news?
Apologies for borrowing the thread.
David, I think you may be subscribed to this thread. We could use your input at SUGGESTION: Books useful when traveling to Israel.
The BHt is included in some of the larger Logos 5 base packages, but when we deliver it, anyone who ordered it as part of a Logos 4 package will receive it also, regardless of whether or not their Logos 5 package includes that title. The analyzed text is nearly ready and I expect this project to be at the top of my tasklist very soon. Sorry for the delay! Almost a year has gone by. Any news?
Now, it has been almost two years!
Maybe Vincent's task list was 2 years and 1 month long. We can always hope.
Yes, let's keep the faith!
Well at least we've found something that's taken longer to deliver than the NA28 Apparatus!
LOL, that's true! [:P]
The first time Richter Morphology was mentioned on the forums was Tue, Jan 5 2010 6:54 AM and I am guessing Ritcher Morphology was first promised with the release of Logos4 on November 2, 2009. Which, in turn would mean that this project has taking thus far almost five years[:O]
I think David Knoll above mentioned this article. It's now downloadable:
.0523.JSS.PDF.
Maybe it's just coincidental, but it sounds like Logos6 is Richter-izing and charging us twice. I'd be happy just to receive what I already paid for, years ago.
Logos? Doesn't Washington state have consumer protection laws? Or maybe Bellingham consumer protection laws?
For the curious concerning Richter:
Theological Dictionary of the OT: (a resource often recommended for Logos):
..
Reading the Hebrew Bible for the New Millennium Vol2:
And New Avenues in the Study of the Old Testament:
At, this point it appears that the Richter Morphology, has become vaporware[:(]!
Have you noticed that Richter Morphology is not included in any of the new Logos 6 base packages? And, is hard to find any mention of it at all on Logos.com website, too. I get only one search result for it on the Logos.com website here: https://www.logos.com/articles/search?q=richter+morphology
At, this point it appears that the Richter Morphology, has become vaporware! Have you noticed that Richter Morphology is not included in any of the new Logos 6 base packages? And, is hard to find any mention of it at all on Logos.com website, too. I get only one search result for it on the Logos.com website here: https://www.logos.com/articles/search?q=richter+morphology
At, this point it appears that the Richter Morphology, has become vaporware!
+No Comment...
As if ignoring the problem would make it go away.
Breach of contract?
Ignoring it is what it appears to be[:'(]!
Unless, the Richter Morphology has been re-named or re-branded as the:
Biblia Hebraica Transcripta
https://www.logos.com/product/25427/biblia-hebraica-transcripta
BHT is Richter, but can you see it in your library?
No I don't. The Logos page shows the price greyed out (as if I owned it), but the Look Inside feature shows nothing.
So Richter, which is Transcripta, is still MIA.
Hello, Bellingham.
There's no 'resource' in the library. In the morph-search, it's not listed.
I checked Logos5 and Libronix (since it's a 2009 date). But Logos.com says I own it.
And apparently anyone can buy it for $6 or so. Probably that's how much they plan to credit us (or at least that's what I'd do if I was a Chrisitian company; non-Christian would be about $60-70).
On the Logos site, if you click on the Look-Inside, it asks you if you're lost! (standard Biblia). I think BHt might be lost in downtown Bellingham.
I'm just excited it's available on my iPad (that'd be future present tense), according to Logos.
HMMM.... [:S]
David, since Richter's BHT is a morphology, it won't be, even when it is shipped.
The "more details" link points to https://www.logos.com/resources/DB%3aSYNTAX-BHT/biblia-hebraica-transcripta (a broken link) which indicates that the Logos ID is not a LLS-type, but a DB type like DB:SYNTAX-AFAT (as shown in the about dialog, when you scroll down the datasets column).
On, the homepage it still has an asterisk (*) beside it meaning it hasn't yet been completed or delivered.
BHT is Richter, but can you see it in your library? David, since Richter's BHT is a morphology, it won't be, even when it is shipped. The "more details" link points to https://www.logos.com/resources/DB%3aSYNTAX-BHT/biblia-hebraica-transcripta (a broken link) which indicates that the Logos ID is not a LLS-type, but a DB type like DB:SYNTAX-AFAT (as shown in the about dialog, when you scroll down the datasets column).
It must be linked to a text just like AFAT (Analysed Text), WHM, and WIVU. Even more so since it does not rely on the Masoretic text as such and the corpus is a bit different (includes Sirach whose Hebrew text is currently unavailable in Logos).
HMMM....
Is this a reincarnation of Silent Sam?
HMMM.... Is this a reincarnation of Silent Sam?
I don't know the reference. Who is Silent Sam?
https://www.logos.com/product/27275/biblia-hebraica-transcripta
That one does not provide a button to purchase...plus it's 4vol.
HMMM.... Is this a reincarnation of Silent Sam? I don't know the reference. Who is Silent Sam?
https://community.logos.com/forums/p/86694/609698.aspx#609698
plus it's 4vol.
The earlier link was to Volume 1 only.
Both point to a Logos Bible Software 2009 publication date, but seemingly it has never been published.
This still doesn't give us anymore information than we had when Logos 4 was released.
HMMM.... Is this a reincarnation of Silent Sam? I don't know the reference. Who is Silent Sam? https://community.logos.com/forums/p/86694/609698.aspx#609698
Oh, I see. He or she does't that in all their posts. No, not a Silent Sam. [:D]
Just the monthly 'bump' in memory of a very useful morphology.
I thought we already had it?
Oh well... bump [Y]
