Bug?:Biblia Hebraica Westminster 4.2 vs. 4.18

I ran Morph searches on a collection of Hebrew bibles specifying Westminster Morphology. The suggested lemmas for h:elo was confusing and gave different results in the resources.

As for the (unexpected) Gender tags, I could not get any results in 4.18 for any part-of-speech!

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Vincent Setterholm

The old 4.2 and the new 4.18 do not share the same lemma list. There have been a lot of changes in the intervening decade, both in the WHM data and in how Logos handles homographs, etc. So when you are trying to search 'all Hebrew bibles' with the Westminster morphology, you're getting a mix of lemma options from different databases. One of the many reasons I suggest just hiding out of date versions. But you also won't have this problem if you just select the 4.18 from the bible picker.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/544424#Comment_544424

I thought mainly to draw attention to the issue of searching both versions. But what about the the (unexpected) Gender tags, where I could not get results in 4.18 for any part-of-speech?

Beloved Amodeo

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/544424#Comment_544424

So when you are trying to search 'all Hebrew bibles' with the Westminster morphology, you're getting a mix of lemma options from different databases. One of the many reasons I suggest just hiding out of date versions.

Hey Vince,

How do we organize our resources for ideal search results against the new member of the family?

Vincent Setterholm

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/544646#Comment_544646

I'll have to get back to you on the search question as I'm on the road and only have an iPad with me. did you check the unexpected gender tags that are part of the pronominal suffixes? I know there are several of those attached to prepositions (with more to be added in the next release). There might be a few on non-suffixes in Aramaic, too, or it could be that our code is using the same list of gender possibilities for main segments and suffixes. I can check when I'm at a desktop machine. I do know that several more of these tags are being added to the next update - this is a new feature and it'll take a bit for all the tagging to be consistent.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/544705#Comment_544705

I know there are several of those attached to prepositions (with more to be added in the next release).

Ahh! I didn't think to check Particles and there are 14 with Fem and Masc (unexpected).

David Knoll

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/544722#Comment_544722

I know there are several of those attached to prepositions (with more to be added in the next release).

Ahh! I didn't think to check Particles and there are 14 with Fem and Masc (unexpected).

But Groves Wheeler say about 4.18:

"the addition of the bracket note “]n” (which designates an unusual or unexpected form) to almost 100 words"

Assuming that tagging of this phenomena started with 4.12 (as stated in https://www.logos.com/product/36749/biblia-hebraica-westmonasteriensis-with-westminster-hebrew-morphology-418) there should be a lot more...

Vincent Setterholm

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/544754#Comment_544754

There's a difference between the bracket note, which designates something unexpected, and the addition of tags in the morph code specifying which element is unexpected, the gender, the state, etc., which in the raw data was expressed with a ! after the relevant field. Dave's search hits were just for suffix gender attached to Hebrew participles. There are other things tagged 'unexpected' as well.

David Knoll

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/544756#Comment_544756

There are other things tagged 'unexpected' as well.

Thanks. Can we search them?

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/544766#Comment_544766

Can we search them?

Enter in Morph Search, select a part of speech and select the attributes with (unexpected) in the name.