TAGGING issue: Strong's, GK, TWOT

Okay, I'll admit I just discovered the Goodrick-Kohlenberger numbers and TWOT numbers. Are there other lexicons that are keyed by number that I should toss into this mix.

1. BUG: A Search on <GK 6214> does not find this resource although the resource is where I found the search argument. Note Strong and TWOT will appear in the resource reference box but GK will not i.e. every key except the key the resource is organized on?

2. Strong's is clearly the editors' favorite as it brings up all the reverse-interlinears. Why GK and TWOT didn't make the cut is a mystery which cause us to be able to leverage our ownership of Strong's more that the Swanson or TWOT resources. But the oddity is that none of the 3 numbers are coded so that they can appear in the resource reference box i.e. missing functionality that was present for Swanson's GK.

3. BUG: The TWOT number search does not find the element in the lexicon that defines it.

4. An independent issue related to the above - both the GK and the TWOT assign Louw-Nida numbers to Hebrew words. Why is this information not leveraged into the LN Search? Note the Search does find Swanson, TWOT, reverse interlinears ...

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Mark Barnes

I hesitate to say it, but I think you've forgotten how things work.

(1) Searching for <GK 6214> is invalid syntax. The result from ESL is just a phrase search. The correct syntax is <HebrewGK = HGK6214>. You still woudn't find the entry in DBL, of course. For that you'd need {Milestone <HebrewGK = HGK6214>}.

(2) In my opinion GK and TWOT simply aren't widely enough adopted for it to be worth adding to all the reverse interlinears. I'm sure the editors felt the same. I don't know why you can't see them in the reference box for ESL.

(3) For your TWOT search, {Milestone <TWOT 1538C>} will find the entry. Again, that's correct.

(4) By "GK and TWOT", I presume you mean "DBL and TWOT". I don't understand what you mean by "Why is this information not leveraged into the LN search?". Searching for LN numbers will return results in both DBL and TWOT. Or are you referring to something else?

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/780335#Comment_780335

1. Yes, I did forget to put the Hebrew in front of the GK.

2. From my perspective more information can be leveraged from GK and TWOT than from Strong's and while I am admittedly not a fan of any number scheme, I'm also not a fan of perpetuating the popular but least useful just because its popular. If I pay for Strong, Swanson and TWOT I want something resembling equal value.

3. I didn't forget about milestones. My point is that the average user should not have to query both milestone and datatype to get the simple answer. The headwords should be tagged both as milestones and datatypes.

4. I cannot do a LN search on the Old Testament because the linkage of data OT-->GK-->LN or OT-->TWOT-->LN is not available

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/780386#Comment_780386

From my perspective more information can be leveraged from GK and TWOT than from Strong's and while I am admittedly not a fan of any number scheme, I'm also not a fan of perpetuating the popular but least useful just because its popular. If I pay for Strong, Swanson and TWOT I want something resembling equal value.

Numbering systems are not for you (or me, for that matter). They don't belong in a digital age (IMO). But people who are used to Strong's like it, so Logos built full support for it. No-one feels that level of attachment for any other numbering scheme, so Logos just implemented what was necessary to support resources that used those numbering systems (and in the very old days of Logos 2, they did a bit more than that). What's the point of them doing more?

I didn't forget about milestones. My point is that the average user should not have to query both milestone and datatype to get the simple answer. The headwords should be tagged both as milestones and datatypes.

Milestones use datatypes. Your search is not a datatype search, but a reference search. I think what you mean is that you think headwords should be tagged much as milestones and references. This would be a big mistake in my opinion. Milestones are not references, and references are not milestones. If you tag milestones as references you remove the helpful distinction between them. (Although if you were to argue that when you do a reference search, Logos would suggest a milestone search in addition, then that might be more helpful.)

I cannot do a LN search on the Old Testament because the linkage of data OT-->GK-->LN or OT-->TWOT-->LN is not available

This 'linkage' was done by the editors of DBL at some point in the distant past. It's really not very helpful. It's imprecise, and because LN was only every designed for the NT, many of the numbers you would need simply don't exist. You're better off without it. Logos is developing new tagging that does similar things, but in much more helpful ways (e.g. sense data).

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/780389#Comment_780389

The milestone/reference distinction is a solid solution to the case where the milestone is simply a pointer to a position in the text and carries no intrinsic meaning. Where it fails to an effective solution is where the milestone has actual meaning with functionality associated with it.

Example 1:

Who's Who in Christian History is one of the resources that has been tagged for the LCV/Factbook as evidenced by its appearance in Factbook
when I open Who's Who in Christian History and select the headword "William Aberhart", the Context Menu does not have a biographic entry for "William Aberhart" - therefore I cannot select it and choose Factbook.
however, for this resource I have added Community Tags for many of the headwords - therefore on right click I can select the biographic entry and open Factbook.
I contend that I should not have to manually add all the Community Tags - the headwords should be tagged both as milestones and references because they serve both functions i.e. they are not simply a position marker, they also carry meaning

Example 2:

Lemmas are identified in a number of ways - lemma itself, lemma itself with a disambiguation number, Strong's number, GK number, TWOT number ... . Regardless of how I identify it I am dealing with a lemma
In a collection of lexicons, if I enter the lemma itself (transliterated or in normal script) I get all lexicons that contain the lemma.
However, in that same collection of lexicons, if I enter the lemma via TWOT number I get only those lexicons in which the TWOT number is not a headword/milestone but is a reference.
I content that even when the TWOT number is a headword/milestone it is merely a reference to the lemma beside it and should be matched in the Search. Otherwise any search of lexicon requires a two part search argument - for milestone and for reference.
Again there is an increase in Context Menu functionality.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/780389#Comment_780389

I cannot do a LN search on the Old Testament because the linkage of data OT-->GK-->LN or OT-->TWOT-->LN is not available

This 'linkage' was done by the editors of DBL at some point in the distant past. It's really not very helpful. It's imprecise, and because LN was only every designed for the NT, many of the numbers you would need simply don't exist. You're better off without it. Logos is developing new tagging that does similar things, but in much more helpful ways (e.g. sense data).

The editor who made the linkage clearly believed it had some value as did the publisher. If Logos does not expect me to use it, they should not be selling it to me.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/780457#Comment_780457

In a collection of lexicons, if I enter the lemma itself (transliterated or in normal script) I get all lexicons that contain the lemma.

Because it is a word e.g. τάλαντον. But quite different if you look for the datatype e.g. <Lemma = lbs/el/τάλαντον>.

Its transliteration could vary and it is not always present.

However, in that same collection of lexicons, if I enter the lemma via TWOT number I get only those lexicons in which the TWOT number is not a headword/milestone but is a reference.

If you search for 927 you will get a result in TWOT!! But a number is not as unique as a lemma (word).

I content that even when the TWOT number is a headword/milestone it is merely a reference to the lemma beside it and should be matched in the Search. Otherwise any search of lexicon requires a two part search argument - for milestone and for reference.

It is uniquely done for Strong's numbers in ESL e.g. <G5007>, but not for other datatypes!

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/780485#Comment_780485

Somehow even after practicing on my son to make sure I was communicating clearly, I am clearly failing to communicate. I'll take a different tack than the forums.

Did you agree with Example 1 as to what is the preferred behavior? Example 2 is an application of the same principle.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/780487#Comment_780487

Did you agree with Example 1 as to what is the preferred behavior?

Your communication is fine, but I'm illustrating that words (headwords) are much easier to handle than other datatypes. Did you note my comment about Strong's numbers in ESL? Note that when you hover, you get the full text of the entry!