I recall someone on the forums mentioning that one of these (Loeb or Perseus) was better in Logos (tagging?), though I don't recall which.
Can anyone give any insight here?
Loeb is better for tagging. Perseus is free.
Thanks
In what way(s) to make it worth purchasing for somebody who uses Classics a lot?
In general, the Loebs are better formatted and include the short introductory material, indexes and maps that the Perseus volumes leave out.
Keep in mind however, that the Perseus texts are based on the same out-of-copyrigh Loeb editions. There is a lot of overlap, so if you just want the text and don't want to spend money on the extra material, the free versions are almost just as good.
I continue to use the Perseus versions occasionally to check for misspellings and typos in the Greek and Latin texts. Otherwise I prefer to use the Loeb volumes.
An example of both Loeb (on Left) and Perseus (on Right) opened to a passage quite early in Plato's Republic. Both have tagging as a destination for the Plato datatype. Both have the surface text and are tagged with lemma forms for each word.
Loeb is broken up into more readable paragraphs. Loeb also includes page number tagging. The about panel says that the Loeb also includes footnotes.
It has been a while since I have done any detail work with either, but one reason I intentionally bought a few Loeb volumes (others were thrown in in various base packages and topical collections) was because in looking at the Perseus when it came to Logos, there were a fair number of typos and the automated lemma tagging had a few issues. I have not done enough work to say if this is improved, or if one is done better than the other as the texts would be delivered now. That said, having two texts to compare gives you another way to catch the problem and start you on the process of figuring out what is indeed the text for a passage.
In general, the Loebs are better formatted and include the short introductory material, indexes and maps that the Perseus volumes leave out. Keep in mind however, that the Perseus texts are based on the same out-of-copyrigh Loeb editions. There is a lot of overlap, so if you just want the text and don't want to spend money on the extra material, the free versions are almost just as good. I continue to use the Perseus versions occasionally to check for misspellings and typos in the Greek and Latin texts. Otherwise I prefer to use the Loeb volumes.
Wow, the paragraph formatting of Loeb is really better. What about the tagging? Is the tagging used with Perseus and Loeb the same? Is one better or better supported than the other?
I haven't noticed that the tagging is particularly better or worse in either. As far as I can tell, they have identical tagging, unless words are spelled differently in a version.
The Perseus texts, however, always seem to have the negative written as "ουʼ" instead of "οὐ" for some reason, I'm not sure why..
Both Perseus and Loeb have machine morphological tagging. That means they'll include multiple options for ambiguous forms. So τελευτῆσαι will be tagged as ALL of the following:
In manually tagged texts, a human editor would select the correct option.
If I were willing to be such a human editor for a particular Greek resource, for Logos, who (in Faithlife) would I need to talk to?
