[request] Visual Filter For Hebrew Pronominal Suffixes
I was wondering if it's possible adjust the visual filter so that it can highlight the pronominal suffix on a word without highlighting the rest of the word.
I would also like to have the particle and negations highlighted separately from the word it may be attached to by a maqqef.
Anyone have any idea if this is possible or is this a Logos 6 bug?
Comments
-
As you know it is possible to search for a pronominal suffix e.g. @RS in LHB, but only the Search results distinguish the suffix. It is a limitation rather than a bug, but someone from Faithlife may comment further.
Dave
===Windows 11 & Android 13
0 -
John Miller said:
I was wondering if it's possible adjust the visual filter so that it can highlight the pronominal suffix on a word without highlighting the rest of the word.
I would also like to have the particle and negations highlighted separately from the word it may be attached to by a maqqef.
I have also noticed this. I'm hoping that this can be addressed in a future update? I'm pretty sure that Accordance does this visual filtering very precisely, so instead of highlighting a whole word when you select "pronominal suffix" it will only color code the pronominal suffix itself. This is helpful in case you have another filter acting for the rest of the word. For example, I have certain words color coded based on frequency, but if I turn on pronominal suffix visual filter, it highlights the entire word instead of just the suffix which is annoying because then I can no longer see the color code for the frequency.
But John, I just though of a workaround in the meantime... you could make the pronominal suffix highlight style in your visual filter a non-dominating or a non-competing style. For example, a box instead of a text color. That way you'd be able to see both highlight marks. Still sounds messy, but a workaround until Logos gets this fixed.
0 -
Bump - FL
Dave
===Windows 11 & Android 13
0 -
John Miller said:
Anyone have any idea if this is possible or is this a Logos 6 bug?
Dave
===Windows 11 & Android 13
0 -
Dave Hooton said:
As the one who provided the "hack" as Eric called it, I'd say no, this issue is not addressed by the work-around (though it is related). By the way different Hebrew bibles in Logos deal differently with the words joined by maqqef (even LHI and LHB differ!). I'll provide more details later.
0 -
John Miller said:
I would also like to have the particle and negations highlighted separately from the word it may be attached to by a maqqef.
While the issue with highlighting only suffixes is more problematic, the issue of words being highlighted because of being attached by maqqef is a problem only in a few Hebrew Bibles that I own: BHS/WIVU, LHI & LDHB.
The versions I own (and haven't hidden) which DO NOT have this problem are: BHW 4.18, AFAT, LHB and BHS SESB 2.0
EDIT: I have been repeatedly frustrated with Logos' treatment of Hebrew which is why I created this thread and this UserVoice suggestion.
0 -
Because many of the pronominal suffixes add a vowel to the last consonant of the stem, the pronominal suffixes are technically spelled with a leading vowel. Unicode rendering rules do not allow Hebrew runs to start with a vowel, so we can't render them independent of the word they're attached to. So we had two choices: 1) spell the pronominal suffixes "wrong," by moving the vowel from the suffix to the stem; or 2) keep the proper spellings but join the word and suffix together into one formatting run.
We ended up choosing #2. Should we have chosen #1 instead? There was some debate internally about this as well (years ago).
0 -
Eli Evans said:
Because many of the pronominal suffixes add a vowel to the last consonant of the stem, the pronominal suffixes are technically spelled with a leading vowel. Unicode rendering rules do not allow Hebrew runs to start with a vowel, so we can't render them independent of the word they're attached to. So we had two choices: 1) spell the pronominal suffixes "wrong," by moving the vowel from the suffix to the stem; or 2) keep the proper spellings but join the word and suffix together into one formatting run.
We ended up choosing #2. Should we have chosen #1 instead? There was some debate internally about this as well (years ago).
I wonder what other implications would this have other than allowing for highlighting of suffixes from the first consonant on? It wouldn't affect the right click menu, as you don't provide the manuscript form of the suffix anyway, just the lemma. So, I'm having trouble imagining how you would "spell the pronominal suffix 'wrong.'"
I would certainly prefer being able to highlight the suffixes from the first consonant on, to not being able to highlight them at all. I think it would be normal that the vowel that goes with the suffix be considered as "attached" to the previous consonant, and so not be highlighted, as we don't normally see highlighting of vowels only anyway.
0 -
Eli Evans said:
We ended up choosing #2. Should we have chosen #1 instead?
I agree with Devin in as far as I would rather be able to highlight separately (sometimes incorrectly "leaving a vowel behind") than not being able to highlight at all.
That said, however, I don't quickly accept that there are only two options... Firstly, how does company "A" accomplish this?:
Secondly, the issue with some Bibles extending highlighting to words that are joined by maqqef (both before or after) is obviously outside the current problem. Also, prepositions and pre-verb negations should not be affected by the issue of unicode ordering rules and yet they are not separated as they should be (IMHO).
Edit: I'm not trying to say that I think it's a simple fix. I happen to know that almost no coding is simple! My hunch is (and I might be totally wrong on this) that a thoroughly robust treatment of vowel points and cantillation signs would go along way in making this possible. In fact, if the vowel points were searchable like I have requested in the previously mentioned places, I could personally accomplish a workaround similar to the one on definite common nouns.
0 -
-
Reuben Helmuth said:
I don't quickly accept that there are only two options... Firstly, how does company "A" accomplish this?:
Logos, uses Unicode internally which as Eli Evans mentioned above comes with a set of rules, but I believe that Acc software and BWs databases use CCAT Beta Code internally and then map their own truetype Hebrew fonts over them when they are displayed on your computer screen.
חַפְּשׂוּ בַּתּוֹרָה הֵיטֵב וְאַל תִּסְתַּמְּכוּ עַל דְּבָרַי
0 -
BUMP
Dead languages are my mid-life crisis
0
