From: Bill Mounce (billm@teknia.com)
Date: Thu Sep 28 1995 - 19:19:23 EDT
Hmmm. I can't let this one get past.
1. The definitions are definitely not the same in my lexicon and
Perschbaker's. We found literally hundreds of mistakes, especially in
biblical references. I have the stacks of paper where students double
checked every single reference. (They volunteered to do it.) My text also
has many more verse references. I think that if the word occurs less than
10 times that we included every reference, but I don't remember the actual
number. Pretty dumb, huh?
I don't remember for sure but did Perschbaker still list cognates together
in the lexicon entries? If it does, like the old one, it is very
frustrating. Mine lists each lexical form alphabetically.
2. My entries also tell you the number of times each inflectional form
occurs, and if it occurs only once, the reference. This is really helpful
for teachers who are trying to find the more commonforms to quiz on.
3. I am working on the next edition that lists forms that occur in the TR
and not UBS text. There are not that many, but they are there. It will
_NOT_ be out for a while, like years.
4. Dan Wallace's grammar will not be keyed to the morphology tags since it
deals with syntax. But my Graded Reader will be heavily keyed to it. By the
way, a xerox copy will be shown at SBL. My deadline is January and Iwill
hit it.
5. Kohlenberger's numbering system is better if you use the UBS text.
Strong's messed some words up, and several words were never coded. As time
progresses, you will see Zondervan's stuff use these numbers more and more.
6. The paper in the two volumes is an interesting debate, which I have
carried on with Zondervan. Actually the paper in mine is costlier than the
high gloss stuff. Go figure. They purposely use the type they do because of
its quality, its acid-free, etc. I tend to like pure white too, but in
terms of use I don't see much difference, although the paper in my text
doesn't glare at all.
7. The introduction to mine is totally different, and is really a subset of
my morphology grammar. Obviously, I prefer it, and it is the same format as
my grammar.
Dr. Perschbaker did a good job cleaning up the older analytical and I
enjoyed using it for a while, but it does carry some of the problems of the
old one over. I didn't check the parsings since I did my own, but the
dictionary articles did need some work. His is less expensive too, which is
nice.
Is this a fair evaluation?
Bill Mounce
-------------------------------
Teknia Software, Inc.
1306 W. Bellwood Drive
Spokane, WA 99218-2911
Internet: billm@teknia.com (preferred)
AOL: Mounce
CIS: 71540,2140 (please, only if necessary)
"It may be Greek to you, but it is life to me."
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:28 EDT