Ambiguity in Bible morphology - How to see alternatives?

2) Can Logos resources or tools show the alternatives?

Yes, the Exegetical Guide does this. In the Word By Word section, hover over ֫± to see the alternatives.

The options shown will depend on the morphologically-analysed resources in your Library.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1074765#Comment_1074765

Thanks, that helps. Don't see the +/- to hover over, but maybe it's about having the right resources.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1074782#Comment_1074782

Try a different RI ... I got it on my third try using the NRSV RI

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1074787#Comment_1074787

Interesting. I only have "forward" interlinears as best I can tell. And when I right click on the NRSV bible resource, it only shows NNSN, but that may be from some default morphology being used with many different resources.

Based on your observation, I looked at a number of other resources. When I tried "The New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform 2005", then both the info panel and a right mouse click shows both accusative and nominative (NASN and NNSN).

Beloved Amodeo

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1074787#Comment_1074787

Try a different RI ... I got it on my third try using the NRSV RI

Is this something that is specific to beta or should I be seeing this with the stable version? I'm certain I own Friberg and I may own Logos Greek, but I don't own Swanson.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1074799#Comment_1074799

Is this something that is specific to beta or should I be seeing this with the stable version?

I believe this has been around since Logos 4.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1074813#Comment_1074813

I learned of it in How do I get the morphological data to persist for comparison? and it appeared to be known to others before that.

Beloved Amodeo

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1074814#Comment_1074814

I learned of it in How do I get the morphological data to persist for comparison?

Very helpful! Via this I have learned that there is a Mac bug for this that has been around since at least 2015, unresolved!

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1074821#Comment_1074821

So I (finally) noticed that there is a resource selector drop down inside the exegetical guide word by word section. Obvious now, but had completely missed it before. Turns out I have a large number of RIs in my library after all.

But none of the 29 of the resources available in my drop down result in a +/-. Including the NRSV NT RI. Although I do show the +/- for Israel in Ex 1:1 as demonstrated in the linked forum thread.

I'm new to all this, but doesn't "NNSN | Direct Object" already give me the same basic information as showing accusative in the +/- hover?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1074852#Comment_1074852

It's not necessary to change the resource in the selector to see alternative morphologies, but you do have to own different morphologically-analysed Greek NTs. Do you have the Analytical Greek NT (Friberg) or a Swanson GNT?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1074860#Comment_1074860

No... unfortunately, I don't have any of those resources.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1074860#Comment_1074860

It's not necessary to change the resource in the selector to see alternative morphologies

If this is true, then my beta installation has a bug.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1074874#Comment_1074874

If this is true, then my beta installation has a bug.

No, my statement was inaccurate.

It's not necessary to change the resource when it's a member of set of resources for which the Corresponding Words visual filter works. Since Corresponding Words doesn't work between NRSV and Elzevir (because the latter is not "word numbered"), then Elsevir's morphology isn't integrated into the EG when NRSV is selected. (But because Corresponding Words does work between NRSV, ESV, SBLGNT, AGNT, etc. then their morphologies are automatically included and you won't get different results (for the morphological analysis part of EG Word By Word) by choosing different resources.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1074945#Comment_1074945

Thanks for the clarification

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1074860#Comment_1074860

It's not necessary to change the resource in the selector to see alternative morphologies

Implied in my statement is "for a particular word". One reason to change resources is when they're based on different manuscripts; when that happens, the manuscript word, lemma, and morphology may of course all be different.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1074964#Comment_1074964

I happened to run into this tonight - I assume auto-generated without human editing. Not a problem but amusing after this discussion:

Lee

The morphological tagging of Bibles in Logos must make choices based on context when there is ambiguity. At least I believe that's true in Greek, but I'm not sure about Hebrew.

Would love to know the status in Heb.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1075013#Comment_1075013

The morphological tagging of Bibles in Logos must make choices based on context when there is ambiguity. At least I believe that's true in Greek, but I'm not sure about Hebrew.

Would love to know the status in Heb.

What the variations show often are differences in the theory of morphology being applied ... differences in the description of the function not in the function itself. Hebrew and Aramaic behave in the same way and have some ambiguities as well which is what I think you were asking.

Lee

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1075020#Comment_1075020

What the variations show often are differences in the theory of morphology being applied ... differences in the description of the function not in the function itself. Hebrew and Aramaic behave in the same way and have some ambiguities as well which is what I think you were asking.

I know about the ambiguities. Just wondering how they are captured and reflected in Logos which is also what the OP was asking, i.e. do you need an RI or some related resources, how to set it up properly etc.