Errors in Grammatical Relationships of Word Study

Russ Quinn

The section that shows usage of words with prepositions in a Bible Word Study needs to be tweaked.

For a study on the word agape, it reports that agape is used with three prepositions (ek, eis, and en) in 6 verses.

Upon inspection, however, it is clear that none of these prepositions are modifying agape in any of these verses.

in 2 Cor 8:7 (which it lists twice for some reason), the object of ek is hmwn not agape.

In 1 Ti 1:5, the object of ek is kardias not agape.

In 2 Th 1:3, the object of eis is allelous not agape.

In 1 Pet 4:8, the object of eis is eautous not agape.

In 2 Co 8:7, the object of en is umin not agape.

These results seem to be based on proximity rather than grammar.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Russ Quinn

It also appears that the categories "Used Adjectivally" and "Modified by Adjective" are exactly backwards.

All of the occurrences under "Modified by Adjective" should be listed under "Used Adjectivally".

The occurrences under "Used Adjectivally" should be listed under "Modified by Adjective".

Russ Quinn

Interestingly the results for the Preposition Use section seem to be okay.

I would recommend using the same algorithms in the Grammatical Relationship section for With Preposition that is being used in the Preposition Use section.

Unless this is a feature? If it is, I'm having a hard time seeing the value of the results in the With Preposition section.

Robert Pavich

Russ,

Interesting....I never noticed.

And my preposition use diagram doesn't match my preposition area in the grammatical relationships section...hmmm

Dave Hooton

Yes, there have been other reports of discrepancies with Subject and Object.

Russ Quinn

The Word Guide still produces these same errors.

Not just for ἀγάπη but also for every noun I checked including πίστις, ἐλπίς, and πνεῦμα.

My question at this point is whether the design team considers this a feature or a bug?

It seems to me to be something that would be very easy to fix.

Very difficult to trust Logos as serious Bible software when such glaring errors are not addressed for two years.

Simon’s Brother

Very difficult to trust Logos as serious Bible software when such glaring errors are not addressed for two years.

Haven't got time to look at this right now and there are those better versed in Greek to validate this than I am, but agree if this problem still exists after two years then this is something Logos needs to address.

Rick Brannan

These results seem to be based on proximity rather than grammar.

Hi Russ.

The "with preposition" sections are when a prepositional phrase modifies the study word. So your example reports where the study word (αγαπη) is modified adjectivally by a prepositional phrase, not where it is the object of a preposition.

The Preposition Use section underneath Grammatical Relationships deals with the study word used as prepositional object, and sorts them by preposition and by case (or lack thereof in instances where, say, an infinitive verb is the object of a preposition).

Hope it helps.

Russ Quinn

Thanks, Rick, for the clarification.

Now that I know the logic behind the "With Preposition . . ." section, it feels like it is less of an error.

I would encourage you to consider renaming the section to be more specific about what it actually is.

Something like "Modified by Prepositional Phrase . . .", perhaps?

Also, I would recommend adding a section in the Grammatical Relationship tool entitled "Object of Preposition . . ." that returns the same results as the "Preposition Use" tool.

The Preposition Use animated graph is super cool and helpful for what it is but I think the goal of the Grammatical Relationship tool should be to produce a complete report on the word's grammatical use.

Dave Hooton

It also appears that the categories "Used Adjectivally" and "Modified by Adjective" are exactly backwards.

I have difficulty believing the accuracy of these sections.

MJ. Smith

It also appears that the categories "Used Adjectivally" and "Modified by Adjective" are exactly backwards.

I have difficulty believing the accuracy of these sections.

Speaking for myself and George (without his permission, of course[;)]), this is a good example of why I shy away from the use of language tools in languages I do not know (especially reverse interlinears [:)]). Using them, you place Logos' scholars and programmers in a position of scriptural authority and have no way of verifying their assertions. Granted most of their work is reliable and helpful - and I greatly appreciate that they (and others) have done the work. I simply remember that the Logos tagging and charts are helpful but not definitive.