The morphology in the exegetical guide (word by word) shows unnecessary parsing, is it a bug, or is it a setting that I need to change? Can someone please help
Can't display your screenshot because it contains errors. Please upload it via the paperclip icon (and check that it is ok).
The unnecessary parsing is possibly something you need to change. This wiki should provide an explanation and you can comment further.
I tried changing the settings from there but it's still not working. For the greek new testament, it's working fine. Thank you so much for taking the time to reply, Dave.
I tried changing the settings from there but it's still not working.
What was your expectation for the Hebrew?
The morphology in the exegetical guide (word by word) shows unnecessary parsing, ...
Hovering mouse over parsing has information pop-up:
Keep Smiling [:)]
The parsing of the Hebrew words is not precise as it should be. Some parsing is wrong.
Thank you. But I want to change how the parsing shows up; like the one in the context menu.
I think you have some incorrect assumptions. The parsing is always as precise as the coding system supports. The coding systems supported in at least one resource include (in my library):
If you find missing code or incorrect codes for Hebrew in the application of the rules for that particular morphological description, you should report it as a data bug. If you would like to see another morphological descriptive system applied to Hebrew, you may request that through the feedback site and hope enough other users agree with you that the project gets the necessary priority.
But I want to change how the parsing shows up; like the one in the context menu.
The parsing data display is not customizable. If you want it to be, request it through the feedback site (feedback.faithlife.com) and hope enough other users vote its priority up.
The morphology in the exegetical guide (word by word) shows unnecessary parsing
I think you are "complaining" about the alternative parsings when the parsing from the various available morphological systems disagree on the classification of the form or offer multiple possibilities. This is an essential feature of Word-by-word as this is the only place to compare the various morphologies. The symbol + over - is the visual clue for alternative parsings.
Thank you so much, now I understand the problem. I thought the parsing is always customizable.
I thought the parsing is always customizable.
Natural language parsing programs are a separate "genre" of programs that are generally produced by natural language processing research groups often associated with universities. They are normally written as trainable artificial intelligence programs which require skills outside the skill set of the target Logos market.
True indeed!
The morphology in the exegetical guide (word by word) shows unnecessary parsing, is it a bug, or is it a setting that I need to change?
What feels buggy to me is Word By Word section showing intermixed Hebrew parsing from selected Hebrew Bible AND Biblia Hebraica transcripta (BHt), which is quite different than morphology shown in Information Tool Tip in selected Hebrew Bible. My preference would be Word By Word morphology matching Information Tool Tip with a setting option to show/hide additional morphology.
Also Word By Word automatic selection of English Reverse Interlinear for the Lexham Hebrew Bible feels buggy: my purchased Logos library shows ESV while my demonstration account shows 1900 KJV (with my preference being Lexham English Bible that is prioritized higher than KJV & ESV).
Yeah that is what I saw as well. Unlike the Greek, the Hebrew is all mixed up in its parsing.
I know you mean well, but portions of the software that (1) don't likely get significant use, and (2) don't get significant improvement, compete for 'silly' (in my mind) to vote on. The other day, Andrew wanted me to vote on a TOC for visualizations. I'd suspect you could go 10 more years with no loss and no interest.
To me, the key is the initial design. That's where FL is weak, staff-wise. 80% and ship it. If it's not good (and this one isn't, along with many more), it'll not be fixed for years. I'd suspect after years, maybe 3 votes max. Most would just avoid wasting time on the design.
On this thread, I had to click on the zero's just to see 'what in the world???'.
is Word By Word section showing intermixed Hebrew parsing from selected Hebrew Bible AND Biblia Hebraica transcripta (BHt), which is quite different than morphology shown in Information Tool Tip in selected Hebrew Bible.
This is the only place in the system that provides the comparative morphology information which is critical for some of us. Of course, the BHt morphology is different (very different) than the Logos Hebrew morphology shown in the tooltip. The Logos morphology is a very conservative (read familiar and outdated) morphology; the BHt is more inline with more recent linguistic theory. I would hope there would be a Great Uprising from the linguistically oriented users if the data was removed. As with all Logos tools, use the portion that fits your needs and ignore that which doesn't.
feels buggy
Have you identified and reported any bugs? The head of the philosophy department where I did my BA use to say he'd earned the right to be prejudice against women, left-handers, and Marines. His complaint against women? In class they would say "I feel" rather than "I think" which drove him nuts throughout 30+ years of teaching. Yeah, I haven't finished my first cup of coffee and I got up early but I really HATE it when people ask to have important data removed ... admittedly not important to them but important to some users. I am always tempted to retaliate by asking for the removal of Strong's numbers as they were developed to serve a problem that no longer exists due to electronic documents with tagging and searching.
I know you mean well, but portions of the software that (1) don't likely get significant use, and (2) don't get significant improvement, compete for 'silly' (in my mind) to vote on.
I feel that I need to be even-handed and guide newer forum users to the feedback site. It says nothing about whether or not I consider the request worthy of consideration.
is Word By Word section showing intermixed Hebrew parsing from selected Hebrew Bible AND Biblia Hebraica transcripta (BHt), which is quite different than morphology shown in Information Tool Tip in selected Hebrew Bible. This is the only place in the system that provides the comparative morphology information which is critical for some of us. Of course, the BHt morphology is different (very different) than the Logos Hebrew morphology shown in the tooltip. The Logos morphology is a very conservative (read familiar and outdated) morphology; the BHt is more inline with more recent linguistic theory. I would hope there would be a Great Uprising from the linguistically oriented users if the data was removed. As with all Logos tools, use the portion that fits your needs and ignore that which doesn't.
If someone has disagreement with Hebrew morphology shown in Word By Word, how should a typo be reported ? Morphology tagging is intermixed plus does NOT show source Hebrew morphological database so I agree with DMB about current 'silly' implementation, which I think is logically puzzling plus feels frustrating trying to decipher 0, 0, 0, 0, other or 0 'what in the world ???'
Personally like idea of comparing Hebrew Morphological database tagging for various words. Awesome would be the ability to compare several older morphologies (WIVU, AFAT, LHW, BHW) with BHt. Also agree with you about BHt morphology being very different: e.g. 'Ground stem [G)' compared to Qal (used in many familiar Hebrew grammars).
... I really HATE it when people ask to have important data removed ... admittedly not important to them but important to some users.
My earlier 'removal' reply had two parts:
My preference would be Word By Word morphology matching Information Tool Tip with a setting option to show/hide additional morphology.
First desire is removing 'silly' intermixing of morphological terms in favor of matching Information Tool Tips for the selected Hebrew Bible.
Second desire is Hebrew morphological database comparison. Awesome in comparison would be the ability to click (or right click) selection so could open source Hebrew Bible to the word having the morphological tagging.
My preference would be using Exegetical Guide: Word by Word to compare five Hebrew Morphological databases:
BUG (SERIOUS) in Word to Wor - Logos Forums
If someone has disagreement with Hebrew morphology shown in Word By Word, how should a typo be reported ?
use the forum or the address provided by Logos at Report a Problem – Logos Help Center
Morphology tagging is intermixed plus does NOT show source Hebrew morphological database
intermixing is a display error reported as a bug; mouse over gives you the definition/morphology system.
If someone has disagreement with Hebrew morphology shown in Word By Word, how should a typo be reported ? use the forum or the address provided by Logos at Report a Problem – Logos Help Center
Challenge in current Word By Word implementation is figuring out which Hebrew Bible has the morphological tag for reporting a typo.
Morphology tagging is intermixed plus does NOT show source Hebrew morphological database intermixing is a display error reported as a bug; mouse over gives you the definition/morphology system.
Mouse hover shows gloss for morphological term, but does NOT show Hebrew Bible source.
How do you know it is an error if you haven't tracked down what morphological system it is supposedly reporting? You reports what information you can with enough information for FL to fill in the gaps you don't know.
The gloss/lookup shows its source which tells you what morphological system that is applied in most cases.
Mouse hover shows gloss for morphological term, but does NOT show Hebrew Bible source. The gloss/lookup shows its source which tells you what morphological system that is applied in most cases.
BHW, LHW, NRSV OT RI, WIVU have morphology explanation in the Glossary of Morpho-Syntactic Database Terminology so gloss/lookup is the same for several Hebrew morphologies. BHt and AFAT gloss/lookup does identify Hebrew Morphology.
Well, this is helpful!! Never knew we have this.
.png)
