Some best tips of the year, many nit-picky - please suggest additions
Logos 8 removed the button to change preferred Bibles
Graham Criddle said:If it helps we can set the preferred Bible from the command box
And we can drag this command to the toolbar to make a shortcut giving us a one-button click to set a particular Bible as preferred
Searching Exact Word or Phrase
Dave Hooton said:
Chris Lane said:
Has something recently changed? If so, what is the proper command to limit search hits to a specific word or phrase?
Nothing has changed. In the Search menu (top right), make sure that "Match all word forms" is not checked. "Match case" can further restrict your results.
Anti-semitic is treated as two words, the same as anti semitic. So both will be a result when you search for semitic.
And a search for "anti semitic" (with quotes) will have anti-semitic as a result.
Chris Lane said:A) Am I mistaken in my understanding that I should only be getting hits with the exact word? Is this how the quotation marks command has always functioned?
In the Search tool, quotation marks are used only to delimit a phrase, so using them with a single word will have no effect. But a Library filter is affected by quotes e.g. "note" will prevent a result with notes.
Chris Lane said:If so, what is the proper command to limit search hits to a specific word or phrase?
One option is unchecking Match All Word Forms
Another option is:
said:[feature request] scriptable API to interface with Logos
Kolen Cheung said:Has this ever been suggested before? And if so what’s the reception on this and Logos/Faithlife’s view on the matter?
Yes, it has been, and we built a simple API: https://wiki.logos.com/Logos_4_COM_API
No one (to a close approximation) used it.
Mark Barnes said:An undocumented SOAP interface allows you to obtain the metadata of resources where you know the resourceID. Getting resourceIDs is more tricky, although your library is a good start. If you're willing to dig around and write some code, you can find out a lot. Here's my list of subjects: https://www.logosresourcesguide.com/subject.php
Ambiguity in Bible morphology - How to see 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.
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?
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.
Another error in names of God interactive which is why I need a right click typo report
Rick Brannan (Faithlife) said:The data in Names of God is built from person and referent data; it is a derivative of those datasets.
BUG/DESIGN BUG: Finding resources with morphological coding that are not Bibles
BUG: And the actual name of the resource is?
Dave Hooton said:
MJ. Smith said:So taking another approach to try to find non-Bible but Bible-related texts with morphology
In your other thread, I recommended Morph Search to identify these resources. But you can use a filter in Morph Search to identify non-bibles:
- type:monograph listed only 2 resources
- type:ancient will list the Ancient Manuscripts
- * -type:bible listed all the non-bibles
From there, you can run a Search on <LogosMorphGr ~ J????>, <LogosMorphHeb ~ N?????>, <ArcInsMorph ~ N????+S???G?>, <SemInsMorph ~ N????+S???G?>, which got results for all my non-bibles. Then you can open them and add to a bibliography.
For (the few) missing resources, open them individually and add to Bibliography. Or find their morphology (from Morph Search), run a Search and then open them.
Dave Hooton said:
MJ. Smith said:
- Make a collection of all resources excluding type:Bible-- I've already reviewed Bibles I believe
- Because of the Migne Patristic volumes, assume that Greek will be the predominate language for any coding, and that the coding will most likely be the Logos Greek Morphology scheme
- Because one may be looking for anything from small fragments to full multi-volume works, choose to search for nouns as the thing most likely to be present even in small fragments
- Run search - get excited as you have identified 93 resources to check.
See my response to a related thread.
- Just filter a Basic Search
- See the morphologies for my search (expanded from Morph Search)
- ok --> search for Nouns
- Get excited with fewer results!
MJ. Smith said:
- Note that you have 5,843,058 results in 135,450 verses in 93 resources. And that the next entry is the Aeneid ... never mind that it is in Latin it is, in fact, coded for morphology and therefore a resource you are interested in.
- Now try to find the 3rd resource ... assuming you don't fall asleep getting from page 1 to page 2 ... it doesn't matter how you navigate nearly 6 million entries just doesn't work very well. Which is very annoying when what I really want is 93 entries - the resources unexpanded. (Yes, I've entered a suggestion for that).
Basic Search condenses results by Title! --> 93 in your case
MJ. Smith said:So the QUESTION IS: How does FL expect me to identify which patristic, pseudepigrapha, apocrypha ... sources are most apt to be of use to me for morphological considerations? How am I supposed to glean the information?
In Morph Search, using an appropriate filter for non-bibles will get you a list. But running a Basic Search as indicated will get the titles in a usable form. Any missing resources can be included by getting their (individual) morphology from Morph Search.
SUGGESTION: Morphology coded resources without access to appropriate tools.
Dave Hooton said:
MJ. Smith said:I have tried to identify resources which are not Bibles but have morphological coding.
The list of All Morph Resources in Morph Search will provide this. You should be able to distinguish bible titles in order to arrive at the non-bible titles!
Bug: Bible Browser results incomplete
The Lexham SGNT Syntactic Force dataset (in Bible Browser) was automatically extracted from the analysis performed by Dr Lukaszewski in The Lexham Syntactic Greek New Testament, published in 2010.
It represents that particular scholar's analysis of the text, so Faithlife will not be correcting any problems or omissions. (If we ever work with him again to produce a second edition (which is probably unlikely), it might be corrected then.)
I think I figured out what might have happened. It looks like the different editors of the analysis were not consistent in how they applied "proper name" tagging. If you continue using this dataset, it may be prudent to assume that proper name tagging only applies to the highlighted books:
And there may be other annotation differences between the three editors.
Rick Brannan (Faithlife) said:Today (April 1, 2019) an update to this dataset that incorporates proper noun tagging across all books is scheduled be released.
The very nature of this dataset is subjective; each passage should be read as the editor's opinion of the analysis of the passage. It should be treated more like a commentary, less like an objective and comprehensive application of tags representing grammatical phenomena; and that's pretty much how I've described it publicly since this data was originally published.
RESOLVED BUG: Inconsistent Context Menu behavior on building morphology Search
The search engine can not handle the @ syntax if there are multiple morphologies available in a resource (e.g. Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek), because the morphological codes use some of the same letters, making the search ambiguous. The search engine doesn't know the language of the word you right clicked on. Nothing ties the search back to where you right-clicked except for the query string and the specification of which resource to search. It needs the query string itself to specify the language. If there is only a single morphology used in a resource, then the query engine can figure out which one to use, and there is no need for the extended syntax.
RESOLVED BUG: Inconsistent treatment of morphology in Context Menu
In the former case, the Latin resource has a morphological analysis embedded in the resource. (This may have been autogenerated, hence the high number of alternate morph codes that are shown, but I'm not sure.)
In the second case, there is no morph/lemma associated with the Syriac text, so nothing appears on the context menu. Your top Syriac dictionary happens to be an analytical lexicon that gives morph and parsing information.
A similar situation would be hovering over "VULGANLEX" under "Look up" in a Latin resource and seeing what a Latin Analytical Lexicon offers.
BUG: Lost morphology capability
NB.Mick said:Maybe that has changed, in the sense that previously morph-search (initially) offered all Greek morphologies available in the software, and now offers those that are available to execute against a resource.
There's only one current resource with Friberg morphology: AGNT - https://www.logos.com/product/1787
and two with Swanson morphology, UBS4 (!) & WH combined here: https://www.logos.com/product/7839
MJ. Smith said:IIRC Swanson moves towards a functional grammar rather than grammatical form; Friberg is a step towards discourse analysis.
Dave Hooton said:From Morph Search with @N, clicking Basic Search returns a list of morphologies current and past:
(([field bible, content] <AFMorphHeb ~ N???????>), ([field bible, content] <AFMorphAram ~ N???????>), ([field bible, content] <BHtMorph ~ N???????>), ([field bible, content] <CALMorph ~ N??>), ([field bible, content] <FrMorph ~ N?????>), ([field bible, content] <ArcInsMorph ~ N????+S???G?>), ([field bible, content] <SemInsMorph ~ N????+S???G?>), ([field bible, content] <SWGreekMorph ~ N???>), ([field bible, content] <LogosMorphGr ~ N????>), ([field bible, content] <LogosMorphHeb ~ N?????>), ([field bible, content] <LogosMorphAram ~ N????>), ([field bible, content] <LogosMorphLa ~ N????>), ([field bible, content] <GrMorph ~ N???>), ([field bible, content] <WestMorph ~ n????+S???E?>), ([field bible, content] <AramaicMorphology ~ n????+S???E?>), ([field bible, content] <LPIMorph ~ N>), ([field bible, content] <MRMorph ~ N???>), ([field bible, content] <SyrMorph ~ N???+S???E?F?Y?T?D?R?>), ([field bible, content] <SESBMorphAram ~ N????+S???>), ([field bible, content] <SESBMorphHeb ~ N????+S???>), ([field bible, content] <WIVUMorph ~ N????>), ([field bible, content] <WIVUMorphAram ~ N????>), ([field bible, content] <WIVUMorphHeb ~ N????>))
GrMorph = GRAMCORD
LogosMorphLa, LPIMorph??
Comparing Luke with Mathew and Mark
Therese said:How can I find Luke sayings that are in either Matthew or Mark?
HJ. van der Wal said:In the desktop software I would use the Parallel Gospel Reader tool, but you could also just open the Eusebian Canons (provided that you have this resource in your library). The Eusebian Canons are an ancient gospel harmony. Canon V contains all passages that occur in Matthew and Luke (but not in the other two gospels) and canon VIII will give you all passages that occur in Luke and Mark (but not in Matthew and John).
HJ. van der Wal said:The best resource to help you decode the BHS apparatus is Understanding BHS by Reinhard Wonneberger:
Alexander C. Stewart said:Andrew, I'm sure you are done with that part of Jonah by now, but I've developed a free guide to decoding most of the BHS abbreviations. I've called it "Helpful Text Critical Abbreviations and Masorah Parva Symbols for BHS (Hebrew Bible)". If you'd like a copy from my Dropbox folder, here it is: https://www.dropbox.com/s/jh1wwacogel6d2f/Helpful%20Text%20Critical%20Abbreviations%20and%20Masorah%20Parva%20Symbols%20for%20BHS%20%28Hebrew%20Bible%29.pdf?dl=0.Should help with your apparatus questions.
There is also the book by Brotzman (Old Testament Textual Criticism, 1994 or 2016 edition with Tully) that has many of the abbreviations and walks through all textual criticism of the book of Ruth in BHS, if you want to see it in action. Then there is the Jonah Handbook by W. Dennis Tucker (Baylor, 2006) that should help with Jonah in BHS. Or Robert Chisholm (A Workbook for Intermediate Hebrew), which can help more with parsing and syntax practice of Jonah and Ruth alike.
Highlight Palette Icon Inconsistencies
David Taylor Jr said:On custom palettes, how come sometimes the correct pallet icon shows up, and other times it is unknown.
Philana R. Crouch said:Sorry, your right It doesn't show them in the drop-down list and that is the current limitation we have.
RESOLVED KYLE RESOURCE BUG: Missing Latin morphology
Kyle G. Anderson said:Our autogenerated Latin morphology is from Perseus data bases. We purposely made the decision not to use it for Bible texts.
Interlinear NA28/Louis Segond does not work
NB.Mick said:This is something I myself learned only recently: Not all Reverse Interlinears will work with the interlinear Text Comparison functionality, but only a dozen of them, which are all in English language:
Non-English RIs such as exist in the French, German and Spanish language, but also those in the Catholic bible editions are not able to be used with interlinear Text Compare.
Library Search Extensions in 7.15 Beta 2
The casing is consistent with the pattern already established for all other extension syntax { } and datatype syntax < >. Going with something different would have broken those patterns. It seems like a stronger argument would be that the non-capitalization of fields is inconsistent with the rest of the query language.
Happily, you can camel-case the field names, and things will still work correctly. Then you can rest easy knowing that everything is consistently camel-case.
All of these were added in order to implement the facets in the library, so they were likely introduced at the same time as their corresponding facet was introduced.
Here are the fields that don't seem to be listed on the wiki page:
SubjectGroup - can be a little tricky to use, since the exact value of the subject looks a little different than what is displayed. Use the values shown in the Facet list in the sidebar as a guide. {SubjectGroup "Bible O.T.--Psalms"}
ResourceType - not very useful, since we don't expose the exact value
Devices - device name
Availability - Cloud/Local (no quotes), only useful after the Cloud Resources feature ships
ReadingStatus - Unread/New/Reading/Finished (no quotes)
Collection - collection name
UpdatedDate - relative date matching, space-separated y/m/d values
AddedDate - relative date matching, space-separated y/m/d values
Library: how to match empty field?
NB.Mick said:
Kolen Cheung said:e.g. I want to perform a search of resources that has empty Series (i.e. not in a series)
This would be all of your library ( * ) minus those that are in any series (series:*), i.e.: * -series:*
That page doesn't seem to mention that you can use {Series None}
Reuben Helmuth said:For this particular scenario, you really don't need to construct any search at all. You can find these resource in two easy ways.
- Select the "None" filter at the top of the list in the Series facet in the filter sidebar
- In the details view, make sure the series column is enabled then click on its header to sort by series (preferably ascending as that will put the ones you want at the top of the list). See the screenshot...
Rick Brannan (Faithlife) said:
K. M. said:The words are in brackets though: "[ειμι ο πρωτος και ο εσχατος [1:18] και εγενομεν̣ ν̣εκ̣ρ̣ο̣[ς και ιδου...". So is it not in the original Papyrus?
Yes, [brackets] usually indicate text that is being supplied by the editor of the papyrus. The editor should have done the work to ensure that the suggested words are an appropriate fit for the space.
If a [bracket starts and has no end
then it is assumed the end of the line has an implicit end bracket. That is, the start of the next line need not specify an ending bracket.
In KS4J's example, the brackets imply that over half the column is supplied/reconstructed. That's not necessarily a problem, there is enough extant text to know what portion of Revelation the text represents. But the supplied portion should not be used as evidence of particular readings or variations. Also, letters with a dot underneath indicate questionable readings, that is, the editor is not 100% sure but is mostly sure of the letter.
K. M. said:Papyrus 115 contains the chapters/verses 2,1-3 (remember, verse 2.8 is what I am interested in). Does it mean that it stretches from verse 1 of the second chapter to chapter 3? Or does it end at verse 3 of the second chapter?
"2,1-3" is a European (German) Bible reference notation that indicates 2:1-3. So P115 is a pretty small fragment, apparently, with only portions of 3 verses extant.
Rick Brannan (Faithlife) said:For more on the standard conventions used in transcriptions of papyri, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leiden_Conventions
Rick Brannan (Faithlife) said:
K. M. said:Does it mean that this big chunk: "φωνη υδατων π̣ολλων [1:16] και εχων εν τη δεξια χειρι αυτου αστερες" in the manuscript itself? So all of line 6 (and some of 7) is in the Papyrus 98, if I understood you correctly.
Yes, that's what the transcription implies (and what the manuscript looks like, it is missing the top left chunk and the right half of the entire column). In whatever your source is, it looks like line 6 is missing a "[", though. Should be: 6: φωνη υδατων π[ολλων ...
Also, the transcription available from the NTVMR (below, which is pretty much "official") differs from your line 7 in the reconstruction. The "Textual Variants" guide section in Logos interfaces directly with the NTVMR and should be able to help you find the image and transcription (Guide section image below the NTVMR transcription image; note some images on NTVMR may require an account with "scholar" access, which just means you need to ask them for an account with those privileges as they basically give it to whomever asks).
PLEASE HELP ME TO SUDY THE WORD OF GOD!
DominicM said:am sure we can work it out together
Here are my codes for verbs
Imperative
Future excluding imperative
Everything else
The bottom 2 are so I can identify if a verb is singular or plural
As I say we can work it out, together if you want.. but this should give you a pointer
DominicM said:
nouns:
proper nouns(names)
ordinary nouns
also sing/plurals again
R=pronoun
J=adjective
B=adverb
C=conjunction
gives me a result of:
c
DominicM said:first create a new visual filter
Then click on (1) MORPH
Then click on (2) Anderson Forb and change it to (3) Logos Greek Morphology
then you can choose your first code
@ will bring up the selection list, make your choices or type in the codes directly
choose the color formatting you wish
when you selct it next entry box will appear..
Please verify my memory on source of lemma and root
Rick Brannan (Faithlife) said:Lemmas in the Logos Greek Morphology tend to follow BDAG.
Roots are a little more complicated. The groupings of lemmas are based on a number of things, notably Middle Liddell, Greenlee's morpheme lexicon, and Warren Trenchard’s The Student’s Complete Vocabulary Guide to the Greek New Testament. The labels we use for the root are essentially the shortest noun or verb of the group, unless something else makes more sense. Determining a "root form" gets hinky pretty quickly, and we decided it would be more useful to have a familiar form for the root than something theoretical (it was also much easier).
Rick Brannan (Faithlife) said:Hebrew and Aramaic lemmas tend to prefer forms from HALOT.
Hebrew and Aramaic roots are a different story and were developed in-house. I don't have any resources to point you to for reference on those.
The "Rank" columns shows how closely the found resources match the search query. It works best when searching for the title or author.
It doesn't support "ties", so the rank for a search for type:Bible will be somewhat arbitrary; you can just ignore it.
Denise said:As a tip for the frustrated librarian, let's say you enter 'scroll'.
If you're like me, I sort my library by edited titles, and the search's return is a mess ('scroll' may be in the title, a publisher used it as a minor description addition, etc.).
But ... if you clik on the ranking column heading, apparently the search word in the title results are first. Yea! Then the maybe guys. Yes, you could just type 'title:scroll' but sometimes I'm not sure exactly where the word is.
As another totally oblivious tip, if you edited your titles (I routinely do, for my sorting), but want the original title sort (in my case, without my sort prefix's), simple click on the book image column. It uses the original title, for sorting.
Resource Type Change: Bible Notes to Study Bible
Kyle G. Anderson said:
MJ. Smith said:Thanks for the heads up. Is Bible Notes being retired or repurposed?
Repurposed. Notes will remain a resource type. We have about 50 titles that fall somewhere between a Study Bible and a Commentary and will remain as "Notes".
If you can imagine a triangle between Study Bible, Commentary, and Apparatus, "Notes" will be titles that don't fall comfortably in any three categories but might have characteristics of all three. The key component is that they will be short "notes" on ranges of Bible Text.
NB.Mick said:Searching for all records matching: ("biblical theology" OR "theology of the ??? testament") -type:("Media", "Bible Notes", "bible commentary")
"theology of the ??? testament" is a very inefficient (but clever!) way to find "new" or "old". You may be able to speed up the performance of your collections by changing to:
("biblical theology" OR "theology of the new testament" OR "theology of the old testament")
Or you can use the (very little known) feature of the Logos search engine that the comma operator is supported inside phrases:
"theology of the (new,old) testament"
Search for "blaspheme - match all word forms" does not find "blasphemeth"
The "match all word forms" feature uses an algorithmic, not dictionary-based, stemmer. It's currently tuned for modern English so it will miss some archaic word endings or forms commonly used in the KJV, e.g., abideth, hath, shalt, thou/thee/thine, etc.
For more info, see my previous posts: https://community.logos.com/forums/p/652/5841.aspx#5841 https://community.logos.com/forums/p/87708/615401.aspx#615401 https://community.l
Sahidic Coptic NT - Horner: Typographical Explanation
Denise said:In the cited resource, Horner has special typographical conventions which I couldn't find in the Logos version. So I went back to the PDF to see what they meant.
For anyone in the future who wonders what they are:
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."