Can accordance do the same searches? If not, can you show me an example via a screen shot off an example?
Hi Ron
Not really sure what you are asking for here.
These forums are to discuss Logos software and not competing products,
Am I missing your point?
Graham
Graham,
I believe the original poster could have worded his post better, but he probably just wanted to know what type of searches and queries Logos 6 was able to run that other software can not run. Or, maybe he want to know if all software programs are the same. This is chance for you and others to commend the powers of Logos 6, rather than dismissing people right of the bat. Keep in mind he might be making a decision to purchase Logos 6, make an upgraded, or even to get read of it.
I will attempt to answer the original poster's question here:
"can accordance do the same complicated syntax/clause searches that logos can do?"
Yes, and no.
Accordance can do complicated syntax searches but their syntax databases are still 'works in progress' and they have not yet completed work on the entire Bible. On, the other hand Logos, has multiple syntax databases covering or for the NT and two on the Hebrew Bible one of which has not yet made the transition from Libronix, yet. Logos and Accordance databases are of course different and have tagged things differently morphologically, syntatically, and thematically. In both Logos and Accordance one can search on syntax graphically. I find Accordance easier to set up than Logos, but Logos can search on a lot more syntactically at this current date. Only Logos 5 & Logos 6 have the clause search as it is original to Logos.
(1) Logos 6, Verbum, and Noet (depending on which package one buys) has data-sets that are completely unique to faithlife/Logos. With, those one can run searches and gather information not available in other software.
(2) Logos 6 resources and books have multiple tags that one can run searches on. Again, many of Logos' tags are absolute unique to Logos/faithlife.
(3) Logos 6 allows users to add their own tags that can they later can also run searches on. (I find this unique in that not every company out there allows the end user to do that)
(4) Logos has the clause search (no one else has that)
(5) Logos has produced or has commissioned their own syntactical databases on the both the NT and the Hebrew Bible (one other software company also has syntactical databases, too ). Logos is the pioneer of syntactical and discourse databases, so of course they have more syntactical data bases than anyone else currently.
(6) Logos has more Journals (as well as other resources) than anyone else. Because of that one can create searches across material not available else where .
(7) Logos 6 can even search the Logos.com's resources! Meaning, one can pick up search hit on resource one does not 'yet', own then if one want to read more, or if one because interested in the resources they can later buy it.
POST SCRIPT:
(Now, having said that I am a big, big, big fan of the other software "Accordance" mentioned. And, I really love to use it because of the intuitive graphical way it allows me to search I also love the fact they their GUI never gets in my way.)
Now, that I have gotten a little of the above off my chest, I will admit that I am also very fond Logos, but for very different reasons! I find that Logos is great as a theological library in fact it is the best of the best at doing theological library work electronically(in my opinion). Storing, Sorting, managing collections, and running complicated quires on my Library is a snap. It, is also the best electronic reading experience I have found as well. Okay, I did not say it was perfect, but it is still the king as far as electronic (English) theological libraries are concerned.
Reflecting on BKMithchell's post above I just wanted to apologise if my reply came across as dismissive.
That wasn't my intention - rather I was seeking clarification of what you were looking for.
But if it came across as unhelpful I am sorry
"can accordance do the same complicated syntax/clause searches that logos can do?" Yes, and no.
Thanks for putting this together - I haven't used Accordance much and had been wondering a bit about the differences in these areas. Much appreciated.
Thanks for putting this together - I haven't used Accordance much and had been wondering a bit about the differences in these areas. Much appreciate
Your very welcome, but I really did say much.
Graham I was also a bit hasty and pointed. There has been some cantankerous of Logos bashing and bit Logos defending going on the threads recently. So, I think a lot of us here react a bit too quickly because of that.
... probably just wanted to know what type of searches and queries Logos 6 was able to run that other software can not run.
Logos Visual Filter highlighting can combine hundreds of search results for simultaneous display so can "see" range of Greek Verbal expression in Greek, English, and Spanish resources that have morphological tagging. Also can show discourse markers using Louw-Nida tagging:
The Greek tense not in Matthew 7 is Future Perfect, which was used 11 times in LXX and none in the New Testament.
Keep Smiling [:)]
Graham, I believe the original poster could have worded his post better, but he probably just wanted to know what type of searches and queries Logos 6 was able to run that other software can not run. Or, maybe he want to know if all software programs are the same. This is chance for you and others to commend the powers of Logos 6, rather than dismissing people right of the bat. Keep in mind he might be making a decision to purchase Logos 6, make an upgraded, or even to get read of it. I will attempt to answer the original poster's question here: "can accordance do the same complicated syntax/clause searches that logos can do?" Yes, and no. Accordance can do complicated syntax searches but their syntax databases are still 'works in progress' and they have not yet completed work on the entire Bible. On, the other hand Logos, has multiple syntax databases covering or for the NT and two on the Hebrew Bible one of which has not yet made the transition from Libronix, yet. Logos and Accordance databases are of course different and have tagged things differently morphologically, syntatically, and thematically. In both Logos and Accordance one can search on syntax graphically. I find Accordance easier to set up than Logos, but Logos can search on a lot more syntactically at this current date. Only Logos 5 & Logos 6 have the clause search as it is original to Logos. (1) Logos 6, Verbum, and Noet (depending on which package one buys) has data-sets that are completely unique to faithlife/Logos. With, those one can run searches and gather information not available in other software. (2) Logos 6 resources and books have multiple tags that one can run searches on. Again, many of Logos' tags are absolute unique to Logos/faithlife. (3) Logos 6 allows users to add their own tags that can they later can also run searches on. (I find this unique in that not every company out there allows the end user to do that) (4) Logos has the clause search (no one else has that) (5) Logos has produced or has commissioned their own syntactical databases on the both the NT and the Hebrew Bible (one other software company also has syntactical databases, too ). Logos is the pioneer of syntactical and discourse databases, so of course they have more syntactical data bases than anyone else currently. (6) Logos has more Journals (as well as other resources) than anyone else. Because of that one can create searches across material not available else where . (7) Logos 6 can even search the Logos.com's resources! Meaning, one can pick up search hit on resource one does not 'yet', own then if one want to read more, or if one because interested in the resources they can later buy it. POST SCRIPT: (Now, having said that I am a big, big, big fan of the other software "Accordance" mentioned. And, I really love to use it because of the intuitive graphical way it allows me to search I also love the fact they their GUI never gets in my way.) Now, that I have gotten a little of the above off my chest, I will admit that I am also very fond Logos, but for very different reasons! I find that Logos is great as a theological library in fact it is the best of the best at doing theological library work electronically(in my opinion). Storing, Sorting, managing collections, and running complicated quires on my Library is a snap. It, is also the best electronic reading experience I have found as well. Okay, I did not say it was perfect, but it is still the king as far as electronic (English) theological libraries are concerned.
I agree.
Also can show discourse markers using Louw-Nida tagging
Can you expand on what you mean by that? Normally a picture is worth a thousand words, but in this case, the picture is crowded enough to have a bit of the reverse effect.
Normally a picture is worth a thousand words, but in this case, the picture is crowded enough to have a bit of the reverse effect.
Here is Mt 15 with only the LN Visual Filters enabled. These can be downloaded from the Faithlife Visual Filters group.
Thank you, Devin (been wondering where you were).
I found the docs in the visual filters group but there is no descriptive. This looks like labels. How was LN used to come up with this? I mean, was this a pre-existing analysis that was turned into a visual filter or is it a user/users extrapolation/interpretation of entries in semantic domains into syntactical categories?
Been really busy with exams and other stuff! [:)]
It is actually rule based - visual filters are great for this. You can see the rules by opening up the Visual Filters files that you download from the Faithlife group. The rules were created based on the divisions and classifications in the LN lexicon (which you can see when you right click on a word), so they should be as reliable or not as the LN classification is or isn't.
Basically any info you can see when you right click on a word (and probably some you can't) can be used to create Visual Filter rules. This can be really useful for making the Greek info that gets lost in translation "visual" in translations that are reverse-interlinear enabled. For example, I have a Visual Filter to show in red words that are based on the "agape" lemma/root, and in blue words that are from "philew".
Thanks, Devin for the explanation. I will take a look at these filters when I have some time (and need) to do so. All the best with the exams!
All the best with the exams!
Thanks!
