Tree Diagraming

The basic structure is nice start, but currently it is limited to binary branching. Would it be possible to add either this:

This would make it significantly easier to work with certain constructions.

But even better would be:

This would allow easy creation of the above structure with three branches and also easily extending the binary one:

Also, it would be helpful to simply have the Category label readily at hand for attaching to the top of a given structure.

And I'm going to assume that at some point in future beta releases, short cuts will be available for bold and italics, as well as for copying and pasting.

Thanks, I'm excited about the potential for all of this.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Robert Pavich

Mike,

Where is tree diagramming found?

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/150573#Comment_150573

I managed to create a more-than-binary looking tree by moving subnodes around and joining them at a common vertex.

By making lines overlap you can make an unwanted line disappear. It's still not as flexible as a general tree diagram, though. So I applaud your request.

Where is tree diagramming found?

It's one of the tools in the Sentence Diagrammer toolbox:

JimTowler

Can we get icons for routers, printers, firewalls, servers ...

Oh - wrong tool for the job.

I've been reading many of the posts for SD, and I got to say, I just dont get it yet. It seems a lot of hard work to draw what I can just read. Clearly, I'm still missing why some of yous (plural pronoun) really like this feature.

Mike Aubrey

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/150588#Comment_150588

I've been reading many of the posts for SD, and I got to say, I just dont get it yet. It seems a lot of hard work to draw what I can just read. Clearly, I'm still missing why some of yous (plural pronoun) really like this feature.

For most linguists, especially those working in formal syntax, tree diagramming is an important tool for studying phrase and clause structure.

Mike Aubrey

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/150584#Comment_150584

By making lines overlap you can make an unwanted line disappear. It's still not as flexible as a general tree diagram, though. So I applaud your request.

I had been doing essentially the same thing for years before Logos 4, once you get back a very simple phrase structure, its gets incredibly complicated and time consuming.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/150588#Comment_150588

I've been reading many of the posts for SD, and I got to say, I just dont get it yet. It seems a lot of hard work to draw what I can just read. Clearly, I'm still missing why some of yous (plural pronoun) really like this feature.

Personally, I never use the Reed-Kellogg diagrams except to correct incorrect diagrams of others. However, I find that some form of block diagram/arcing is a skill people in small group Bible studies and liturgical readers find useful, especially in Paul's epistles. For my own use, I primarily use tree diagrams - you would find links to two tree diagramming products on my shortcut bar. To be able to do tree diagrams within Logos is a big step forward. Why tree diagrams? Because I can stop developing the structure at whatever level is useful to me - from phrase to morpheme.

Also note that Logos uses tree diagrams in their own resources - they just lie them on their side.

JimTowler

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/150934#Comment_150934

(Thanks to Mike too)

However, I find that some form of block diagram/arcing is a skill people in small group Bible studies and liturgical readers find useful, especially in Paul's epistles.

I'm not sure if this is good place to ask. Maybe I need to read a book or web page or wiki entry etc.

I still don't know what someone can know after looking at, or drawing, an SD that they did not know before. What did they learn/discover/work out?

Is it "factual" or does it depend on assuming very exact words, spelling, usage etc, to support whatever?

How much "fact" can be extracted from the exact morph codes for a given word Luke might have used to quote Jesus, if Jesus migh have spoke it in Aramaic 30 years earlier?

Oh - I know - getting too far off topic ...

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/151137#Comment_151137

What did they learn/discover/work out?

Probably the most important thing one learns is the relationship between the phrases and clauses of the sentence. It's somewhat like going through and resolving all the occurrences of deixis - when you read it, you think you know. When you have to actually state it you discover you don't. It also can may more clear the differences between translations when that difference is placing phrase or clauses in different relationships. See last verse or two of Psalm 4 in the New Jerusalem translation. (or was it the original Jerusalem?) It can also be useful in identifying why words appear/disappear in translation - the words in a diagram that are in positions that are required or implied by the syntactic rules of a language. The "in the hospital" and "in hospital" discussion in the forum is a simple example.

JimTowler

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/151147#Comment_151147

It's somewhat like going through and resolving all the occurrences of deixis

OK - Yet again, since having Logos4, instead of getting answers, I keep learning there are things I know nothing about.

I looked that word up in Logos4. I still have no idea what it means, but its feels like I've looked it up before [:)]

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/151184#Comment_151184

Deixis is reference by means of an expression whose interpretation is
relative to the (usually) extralinguistic context of the utterance,
such as

who is speaking
the time or place of speaking
the gestures of the speaker,
or
the current location in the discourse.

So something like "I ate over there" doesn't have meaning unless you know MJ is speaking and where MJ is pointing.

It is similar to antecedents. Tom was bitten by his dog. Tom is the antecedent of his. But antecedents point to something earlier in the text, while deixis points to something outside the text. Or, a bit casually, antecedent is used for grammatical analysis and deixis is used for discourse analysis; or as I use them deixis is a bit broader than antecedent.

Of course, now someone with more recent training should jump in and refine my answer.[;)]

Mike Aubrey

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/151405#Comment_151405

Deixis is reference by means of an expression whose interpretation is
relative to the (usually) extralinguistic context of the utterance,
such as

who is speaking

the time or place of speaking

the gestures of the speaker,
or

the current location in the discourse.

So something like "I ate over there" doesn't have meaning unless you know MJ is speaking and where MJ is pointing.

It is similar to antecedents. Tom was bitten by his dog. Tom is the antecedent of his. But antecedents point to something earlier in the text, while deixis points to something outside the text. Or, a bit casually, antecedent is used for grammatical analysis and deixis is used for discourse analysis; or as I use them deixis is a bit broader than antecedent.

Of course, now someone with more recent training should jump in an refine my answer.

I smell SIL's glossary.... Wink

Typically, antecedents are understood as being deictic, too -- e.g. demonstrative pronouns are deictic elements, whether they refer to text external referents or internal anaphors. The wikipedia article on deixis is pretty decent (which is generally true for their linguistics articles -- for example the article on Malay: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malay_language).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deixis

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/151425#Comment_151425

Typically, antecedents are understood as being deictic, too

Good to know 'cause I use "deixis" as if this were true but wasn't sure if I was being sloppy or not.

JimTowler

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/151184#Comment_151184

I looked that word up in Logos4. I still have no idea what it means, but its feels like I've looked it up before

What! No-one wanted to pick up on my attempt at a joke about deva vu?

Its a tough room tonight ...

(Thanks MJ for the answers. I really must learn more of these things.)