Mike Aubrey April 25, 2009 Other

TLG

Part of my impetus to translate the Greek in the previous post was the discovery that through Trinity Western I have access to the TLG, which I cannot tell you how excited I was to discover.

10Comments

Add yours

1

R. Mansfield on April 25, 2009 at 10:23 am
Reply

I love the TLG. I’ve got the importer for Accordance which allows me to use the texts with other Accordance modules.
- 2
  
  Mike Aubrey on April 25, 2009 at 10:31 am
  Reply
  
  I do the same thing with Logos’ Sermon File addin:
  
  https://evepheso.wordpress.com/2008/12/02/using-logos-to-study-greek-texts-not-in-logos/
  
  When I set the language to Greek, I automatically link to Perseus Morphology.
3

R. Mansfield on April 25, 2009 at 10:53 am
Reply

Very nice. It looks like you and I have the same kind of functionality, albeit on different platforms.

Last year at SBL I was working in the Accordance booth and one of the members of the original Perseus Project had all the files on a thumb drive. I’m assuming these are the same ones that used to be on a CDROM when they were distributed that way.

The TLG importer for Accordance is actually made for these files. So, this fellow asked me if my school had access to the current TLG library. When I acknowledged we did, he simply let me copy all the files to my MacBook Pro.

One day I’ll set about converting all of them. At least it’s nice to have them in a manner in which they aren’t tied to the TLG website and which I can use in conjunction with other Accordance Greek tools.

By the way, Mike, I did pick up the Logos Original Language Library. I don’t know why they don’t advertise that one for the Mac, but it IS available if you call them. They gave me a nice 50% off academic discount which I appreciate. I haven’t used it that much yet. Accordance meets most of my needs, but I did want to be familiar with the Logos/Libronix platform.
- 4
  
  Mike Aubrey on April 25, 2009 at 11:03 am
  Reply
  
  I’ve tried to dabble with the XML text files from the Perseus Project a couple times, but I know too little about this kind of thing to actually do anything with them.
  
  My *guess* is that they don’t advertise the Original Language Library for Mac because currently Mac 1.0 doesn’t have all the original language functionality that Windows 3.0 has. They’re so far along in preparing for 4.0 that they decided to focus on getting functionality parity between the two when 4.0 comes out next year. But that’s just a guess, though an educated one.
  
  I always envy those who have both. Someday I hope to be in that position myself.
  - 5
    
    R. Mansfield on April 25, 2009 at 11:10 am
    Reply
    
    I’ve only followed the situation for a very far distance with curiosity enough to get the one package as I mentioned above. It seems like creating the Mac version was a bigger chore for them than what they envisioned. Evidently, the Mac version requires a separate code base for the engine unlike some software that resides on both Mac and Windows. I wonder (in hindsight) if the better route would not have been the one the WORDsearch folks took, using X11 to simply port over their Windows version, allowing it to run on the Mac free of Windows. It still looks like a Windows program, but it runs just fine and doesn’t hog memory.
    - 6
      
      Mike Aubrey on April 25, 2009 at 11:14 am
      
      I’ve wondered the same thing. I don’t know how familiar you are with the Windows version, but one of the major issues was the fact that the Windows version is dependent upon Internet Explorer, which of course causes problems for porting to Mac.
      
      How much memory does the Mac version require? I’ve heard that its faster than windows – which doesn’t take too much (looking forward to 4.0 there: search 8,000 resources in 2s).
7

R. Mansfield on April 25, 2009 at 11:33 am
Reply

I’m not sure of what it requires, but I just opened it, and looking at the Activity Monitor, it was using 59MB with no files open. I opened four files and it shot up to 82MB. Of course with 4GB of RAM, this is nothing that will hinder me, and I haven’t done any kind of complex search that would really tax it. However, in comparison, I’ve got Accordance open with 11 tabs, some of them with more than one text open and Accordance is showing 46.99MB of RAM being used. Just for kicks, I opened up WORDsearch (the one ported to the Mac) and it is showing 23MB just for X11 and 5.88MB with four texts open.

I don’t know about speed for it. I would hope it’s not slower than the Windows version, because I find it MUCH slower than Accordance. Even for simple things like moving the mouse over a Hebrew word to get information. I have to WAIT on the Libronix version whereas Accordance is so fast, I almost think its second guessing me sometimes. I have a 2.8 GHz MacBookPro with 4GB of RAM bought just last Fall.
- 8
  
  Mike Aubrey on April 25, 2009 at 11:55 am
  Reply
  
  Well, then its using less memory than the Windows versions, which opens to about 100MB right away. I’ve heard that its faster than the windows version too, but I don’t know. My wife’s Mac is an old G4 and my PC is less than a year old: 768MB ram vs. 4GB ram.
  
  I think we’ll both be looking forward to the next release – speed will improve then.
9

Seumas on April 26, 2009 at 5:24 am
Reply

TLG access is a wonderful thing.
- 10
  
  Mike Aubrey on April 26, 2009 at 8:56 am
  Reply
  
  Indeed.

Rate this:

Share this:

Like this:

Related