a question from an Accordance User
Comments
-
Mark Allison said:
I've completely switched to Logos and don't use Accordance at all any more.
Hmm. I'm impressed. I'm probably 80% Logos now, but that remaining 20% is searches I haven't figured out how to do, or else resources I can't justify duplicating just yet. If I could figure out how to add favorites/bookmarks on mobile, it would jump to 90%.
0 -
Jonathan Huber said:
If I could figure out how to add favorites/bookmarks on mobile, it would jump to 90%.
Highlight where you want to put the favorite and then, in the context menu, slide it just a little. Favorite is one icon to the right of share, so you can almost see it without moving but not quite. It will show up in your desktop favorites under application -> mobile favorites.
Using Logos as a pastor, seminary professor, and Tyndale author
0 -
Not sure if I should post this here, or a separate thread. This thread has inspired me to learn more about Lexicons so i guess it works
I found a podcast called Tool Talk, which discusses various related topics. One particular discussion is about the problems with the existing Greek Lexicons.
The majority of the podcast is a review of a book, so I will cite the book first. It is unavailable on Logos, although Logos carries several other of the authors titles.
A History of New Testament Lexicography (Studies in Biblical Greek)
The price is very high on the paperback, obviously not a mass market topic.
The podcast that reviews the book and discusses the issues
Tool Talk: Limited Lexicons: Our Flawed Friends and Their Future
A quick summary is that today's lexicons are limited in accuracy. They rely heavily on their predecessors without adequate verification. Small numbers of sources are used due to time constraints, when large numbers are available.
I am speculating that lexicography will be computerized in the future and that exhaustive review of literature made possible by computers could contribute to greater accuracy in lexicons and in translations. This is already happening with textual criticism.
0 -
HJ. van der Wal said:
Shalom Kristin,
What do you mean by "an accurate count of words"?
If for example you search for the noun אור "light" in the Hebrew Bible you will get:
- 122 hits (HMT-W4 in Accordance and BHW 4.18 in Logos)
- 121 hits (LHB in Logos)
- 115 hits (BHS in Logos and MT-ETCBC in Accordance)
All of these are accurate counts and it is not a Logos/Accordance split.
Shalom HJ. van der Wal,
I am sorry for not responding to this earlier, somehow I missed it. Anyway, what I mean by "accurate" is actually "consistent." I have been using Accordance's HMT-W4 for years, and have recorded word counts according to the Accordance lex. So I would record אור as 122. I agree completely that a case could be made for why 121 or 115 is more accurate (I assume), but since I have spent years recording it one way, it would be sheer chaos to start recording it another way. One thing I am wondering though, in Logos, is there a way to easily see the hits discrepancy between BHW 4.18 and BHS? I am curious where the 7 hit discrepancy occurs.
Frank Jones said:Kristin, You might not want to do this but I would be interested to see if you can re-run (say, 5?) of your last research runs in both Logos and Accordance to see how they match/don't match. Searches are pretty quick in both programs. If you continued in Accordance but also ran it in duplicate in Logos I wonder if your confidence would diminish or increase? You might have already done this however.
Hi Frank,
Likewise, I somehow didn't see this until just now. Ya, I actually have already been running random searches comparing the two. While I have truly just been running random words, so this isn't some sort of technical analysis, my impression is that in the NT Accordance and Logos seem to agree 95% or so of the time. So they normally agree, but the problem is that there isn't a rhyme or rhythm to when the Accordance / Logos discrepancies occur, and that is the main issue. If, hypothetically, I had a list that said "here are the 58 words which are filed differently in Accordance and Logos," then I could be aware of those words and continue with confidence. However, there isn't such a list, and after I discover a discrepancy, I don't know if this is nearing the end of the list of discrepancies, or just scratching the surface. Also, while I know that the Accordance HMT-W4 is supposedly the same as the BHW 4.18 in Logos, I don't know if there would be discrepancies anyway. After all, in the NT I am using NA28 in both programs, yet finding these issues.
Given that I need an accurate count (and that functionally means a "consistent" count, which matches the one I have used for years), I think Mark Allison is correct that I should stick to Accordance for my lexical work. So while I would say my confidence in the Logos lemma decreased after running searches, I feel more at peace about it after what Mark said. I think the key is that I need to do lexes in Accordance (and their User Bible), and just appreciate Logos for the true advantages it does have, such as the fact that it has ANET. I admit this is concerning though, as the reason I decided to get Logos was sort of as a precautionary measure, so that just in case something happened to Accordance (and I truly hope nothing happens), that I could just continue my work in Logos. However, seeing this "lemma / lexeme" issue, I obviously can't do that. So hopefully Accordance sticks around so I can keep working.0 -
Kristin said:
but the problem is that there isn't a rhyme or rhythm to when the Accordance / Logos discrepancies occur,
I would expect it to be predominantly suppletive inflections or dialectic differences e.g.
[quote]
Verbs
- εἰμί (eimi): "to be"
- Present: εἰμί, εἶ, ἐστίν
- Imperfect: ἦν
- Future: ἔσομαι
- Aorist: ἐγενόμην
- φέρω (phero): "to bear, carry"
- Present: φέρω, φέρεις, φέρει, etc.
- Aorist: ἤνεγκα, ἤνεγκας, ἤνεγκεν, etc.
Nouns
- ἄνθρωπος (anthropos): "human being"
- Masculine nominative singular: ἄνθρωπος
- Feminine nominative singular: γυνή (gyne)
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."
0 - εἰμί (eimi): "to be"
-
MJ. Smith said:
Nouns
- ἄνθρωπος (anthropos): "human being"
- Masculine nominative singular: ἄνθρωπος
- Feminine nominative singular: γυνή (gyne)
Could you clarify what this is? It appears like the two white points are subpoints, but if "man" and "woman" are subpoints of "human" (I guess, I would file these as three separate words...), shouldn't the masc / nom / sg be ἀνὴρ?
0 - ἄνθρωπος (anthropos): "human being"
-
Kristin said:
(I guess, I would file these as three separate words...)
I can potentially see 2 but not 3 i.e. 2 in which one of them has 2 senses. By subpoint, I assume you mean hyponym i.e. man is a subtype of human. No, the intent was to show forms that showed the suppletive nature of the declension.
Kristin said:shouldn't the masc / nom / sg be ἀνὴρ?
I do see this form in the LXX but it is coded as from lemma ἀνήρ - man or husband. The morphology charts in Logos confirm the form I copied, not the form you suggest. Or from a random grammar Davis, William Hersey. Beginner’s Grammar of the Greek New Testament. Revised and expanded edition. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2005.:
Note this lemma is not PIE which is what I know not Greek. I am totally dependent upon what the reference books tell me.
This resource appears to have a list of verbs with suppletion.
[quote]
An obelus denotes a form apparently not older than the Hellenistic age. When placed on the extreme left it means that the whole verb is late. Suppletives are enclosed in square brackets.
James Hope Moulton and Wilbert Francis Howard, A Grammar of New Testament Greek: Accidence and Word-Formation., vol. 2 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963–), 225.
I don't have an equivalent for nouns in my library.
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."
0 -
John said:
Not sure if I should post this here, or a separate thread. This thread has inspired me to learn more about Lexicons so i guess it works
I found a podcast called Tool Talk, which discusses various related topics. One particular discussion is about the problems with the existing Greek Lexicons.
This is a very helpful post. I don't have the same research objectives as @Kristin - but this thread has amplified my interest in increasing my effectiveness in using Lexicons, understanding the tagging that is going on and how to use the software more effectively.
I hope that Logos is reading these posts. Since Dr. Heiser is no longer with us and in Logos, I don't know who else leads the discussions in terms of the development of the platform in relation to cutting edge language studies. My concern would be that in an effort to create greater accessibility with the general market, that the momentum gained in recent years with original languages would diminish. Combined with the concerns raised about Accordance's future, this is not a good thing.
Without connecting the dots unfairly, I have been concerned that the 'New Resource Toolbar' featured in v. 36 beta diminishes the current functionality of the inline search toolbar. Those who prefer to engage the software in a text centric point of view, might not see the emphasis on using Search Panel as a positive development. I have expressed a point of view that this is not a step forward in terms of reducing friction in original language studies workflows. I for one, have the current inline search toolbar open all the time when I am engaged in textual studies. Going to the search panel just adds more clicks.
So when it comes to the development of the platform, I hope there are original language studies use case voices being combined along with the others that Logos targets (pastoral, devotional, etc), including the ones that the developers hold, so that Logos can continue to lead the way as it has done in recent years.
0 -
Justin Gatlin said:
Highlight where you want to put the favorite and then, in the context menu, slide it just a little. Favorite is one icon to the right of share, so you can almost see it without moving but not quite. It will show up in your desktop favorites under application -> mobile favorites.
Aha! Thank you!
0 -
Donovan R. Palmer said:
Going to the search panel just adds more clicks.
Typically, this is where hotkeys come in handy. Hotkeys still work the same, right? Also, perhaps I have misunderstood something, but I don't see how the new toolbar requires more clicks. It's one click to the inline search now and also one click to the inline search with the new toolbar. What am I missing?
0 -
Aaron Hamilton said:
Typically, this is where hotkeys come in handy. Hotkeys still work the same, right? Also, perhaps I have misunderstood something, but I don't see how the new toolbar requires more clicks. It's one click to the inline search now and also one click to the inline search with the new toolbar. What am I missing?
I can't test the new toolbar out as I don't have a dedicated machine.
What I am advocating for is that the ability to continue to do inline searches within the Bible text itself, which results (for some workflows) in a reduced set of actions and cognitive load.
So for example, if I am reading along and something jumps out at me, I can go to the search box, do a search which in effect creates a visual filter to see the results. If I want to drill further, I can move the results to the search pane which has a whole bunch of functionality that is often irrelevant to what I want to do with the text (i.e. Books, Factbook, etc), plus it is in a different format which my eyes and mind need to reorient around. This is ok in some instances, but most of the time, I just want to clear the results of my search and carry on reading.
Full disclosure, this is obviously partly a preference and a way of working that has been influenced by using Accordance for a number of years. Accordance's USP was that it was text centred, and I saw value in it. I set up a workspace that keeps the text central and I can have minimal clicks to keep it in view. At least until the new dynamic toolbar that is being tested, we had the best of both worlds. You could use the inline search for this effect on your workflows, or you could go to the mega search toolbox Search Pane. With the revision of the toolbar, my question is can we retain this? It appears there is diminished capabilities with inline search in this new tool bar. (I could be wrong)
On a similar note, I have been advocating for L4 links to line up with MacOS conventions that other apps employ. This new toolbar is cool and I can fully accept the push for simplifying it, I am just hoping we can retain some of these power features in this transition.
Of course, I am only one opinion...
0 -
Thank you Donovan,
I've been digging into this more (I don't currently run the beta version), and I'm able to better follow your statements now. I expect that with the new toolbar, there will be certain things initially that function as a step back. This is to be expected. Hopefully (fingers crossed), they will fix those things over time as updates are released. I have been getting more into inline search and have really enjoyed it. I would hate to see reduced functionality here. Does the inline search hotkey still work in the beta version? On windows, it's currently Ctrl + Shift + F. It would be nice if that opened/closed inline search with the new toolbar as well.
0 -
Thank you Donovan,
I've been digging into this more (I don't currently run the beta version), and I'm able to better follow your statements now. I expect that with the new toolbar, there will be certain things initially that function as a step back. This is to be expected. Hopefully (fingers crossed), they will fix those things over time as updates are released. I have been getting more into inline search and have really enjoyed it. I would hate to see reduced functionality here. Does the inline search hotkey still work in the beta version? On windows, it's currently Ctrl + Shift + F. It would be nice if that opened/closed inline search with the new toolbar as well.
0 -
Thank you Donovan,
I've been digging into this more (I don't currently run the beta version), and I'm able to better follow your statements now. I expect that with the new toolbar, there will be certain things initially that function as a step back. This is to be expected. Hopefully (fingers crossed), they will fix those things over time as updates are released. I have been getting more into inline search and have really enjoyed it. I would hate to see reduced functionality here. Does the inline search hotkey still work in the beta version? On windows, it's currently Ctrl + Shift + F. It would be nice if that opened/closed inline search with the new toolbar as well.
0 -
Thank you Donovan,
I've been digging into this more (I don't currently run the beta version), and I'm able to better follow your statements now. I expect that with the new toolbar, there will be certain things initially that function as a step back. This is to be expected. Hopefully (fingers crossed), they will fix those things over time as updates are released. I have been getting more into inline search and have really enjoyed it. I would hate to see reduced functionality here. Does the inline search hotkey still work in the beta version? On windows, it's currently Ctrl + Shift + F. It would be nice if that opened/closed inline search with the new toolbar as well.
0 -
Thank you Donovan,
I've been digging into this more (I don't currently run the beta version), and I'm able to better follow your statements now. I expect that with the new toolbar, there will be certain things initially that function as a step back. This is to be expected. Hopefully (fingers crossed), they will fix those things over time as updates are released. I have been getting more into inline search and have really enjoyed it. I would hate to see reduced functionality here. Does the inline search hotkey still work in the beta version? On windows, it's currently Ctrl + Shift + F. It would be nice if that opened/closed inline search with the new toolbar as well.
0 -
Thank you Donovan,
I've been digging into this more (I don't currently run the beta version), and I'm able to better follow your statements now. I expect that with the new toolbar, there will be certain things initially that function as a step back. This is to be expected. Hopefully (fingers crossed), they will fix those things over time as updates are released. I have been getting more into inline search and have really enjoyed it. I would hate to see reduced functionality here. Does the inline search hotkey still work in the beta version? On windows, it's currently Ctrl + Shift + F. It would be nice if that opened/closed inline search with the new toolbar as well.
0 -
Shalom Kristin,
Kristin said:One thing I am wondering though, in Logos, is there a way to easily see the hits discrepancy between BHW 4.18 and BHS? I am curious where the 7 hit discrepancy occurs.
Apart from Amos 8:8 there is also a difference regarding the expression עַד־אֹ֥ור הַבֹּ֖קֶר which occurs 6 times (Judges 16:2 is not in the screenshot below). The morpho-syntactic database underlying the BHS SESB in Logos and MT-ETCBC in Accordance analyses אור in these 6 verses as a verb and not as a noun:
Kristin said:After all, in the NT I am using NA28 in both programs, yet finding these issues.
The surface text of the NA28 should be the same in both programs but the underlying databases are completely different.
Imagine you have dead-tree copy of NA28 lying on your desk. There is no morphological tagging in the paper edition. In former days you could buy other paper tools in addition to the original language text, like for example an analytical key or a parsing guide (you can still find these resources in the Logos store). In Logos and in Accordance the NA28 will have its own morphological tagging. It is somewhat like having multiple analytical keys (edited by different scholars and published by different publishers) to help you read and search the Bible in the original languages. But it should come as no surprise that scholars will sometimes disagree.
May I ask you if you have already thought about what you will do when the next edition of Nestle-Aland will be published? Will you stay with the NA28 because that is the surface text that you have started to use or will you move on to NA29?0 -
Thank you Donovan,
I've been digging into this more (I don't currently run the beta version), and I'm able to better follow your statements now. I expect that with the new toolbar, there will be certain things initially that function as a step back. This is to be expected. Hopefully (fingers crossed), they will fix those things over time as updates are released. I have been getting more into inline search and have really enjoyed it. I would hate to see reduced functionality here. Does the inline search hotkey still work in the beta version? On windows, it's currently Ctrl + Shift + F. It would be nice if that opened/closed inline search with the new toolbar as well.
0 -
Donovan R. Palmer said:
What I am advocating for is that the ability to continue to do inline searches within the Bible text itself, which results (for some workflows) in a reduced set of actions and cognitive load.
Thank you Donovan,
I've been digging into this more (I don't currently run the beta version), and I'm able to better follow your statements now. I expect that with the new toolbar, there will be certain things initially that function as a step back. This is to be expected. Hopefully (fingers crossed), they will fix those things over time as updates are released. I have been getting more into inline search and have really enjoyed it. I would hate to see reduced functionality here.
0 -
Thank you Donovan,
I've been digging into this more (I don't currently run the beta version), and I'm able to better follow your statements now. I expect that with the new toolbar, there will be certain things initially that function as a step back. This is to be expected. Hopefully (fingers crossed), they will fix those things over time as updates are released. I have been getting more into inline search and have really enjoyed it. I would hate to see reduced functionality here.
0 -
Kristin,
Concerning your desire to compare Accordance Morphology to what Logos uses. I think the only way to do it would be to identify what database each one is using.
In Logos, if they have both Morphology databases, you would be able to compare them in the "Text Compare" tool in the tools menu.
But I don't think they have information specifically for Accordance users. But someone in Logos who works in that area of expertise should be able to shed some light on the problem.
0 -
Donovan R. Palmer said:
What I am advocating for is that the ability to continue to do inline searches within the Bible text itself,
In another thread Ali indicated this is back under discussion at Logos. I expect the functionality to be returned; I hope I'm not wrong.
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."
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
In another thread Ali indicated this is back under discussion at Logos. I expect the functionality to be returned; I hope I'm not wrong.
I saw that and I am hopeful too.
I thought your comments about differentiating between search, find and lookup were very useful. I am glad you are part of this community!
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
Nouns• ἄνθρωπος (anthropos): "human being"
• Masculine nominative singular: ἄνθρωπος• Feminine nominative singular: γυνή (gyne)MJ. Smith said:...the intent was to show forms that showed the suppletive nature of the declension.
Hi MJ,
Ok. Given this, the confusion had been that the declension chart above actually says that "woman” is a declension of “human,” which is obviously not true.
Oh. I see. Thank you for clarifying. I hadn’t realized that. Given that, I can clarify that ἄνθρωπος is a declension of ἄνθρωπος, but γυνή is not a declension of ἄνθρωπος. They are fundamentally two different words. Likewise, ἀνὴρ is also an independent word.MJ. Smith said:
Note this lemma is not PIE which is what I know not Greek. I am totally dependent upon what the reference books tell me.0 -
Donovan R. Palmer said:
Accordance's USP was that it was text centred, and I saw value in it. I set up a workspace that keeps the text central and I can have minimal clicks to keep it in view.
Same. [:)]
0 -
Bobby Terhune said:
In Logos, if they have both Morphology databases, you would be able to compare them in the "Text Compare" tool in the tools menu.
Hi Bobby,
Thank you. I just tried this. When I did, it just opened a bunch of texts in parallel. When I do a text compare in Accordance, by contrast, it can mark points where the text disagrees. Does Logos have that function?
0 -
Donovan R. Palmer said:
This is a very helpful post. I don't have the same research objectives as @Kristin - but this thread has amplified my interest in increasing my effectiveness in using Lexicons, understanding the tagging that is going on and how to use the software more effectively.
Thanks for saying this! [:)]
Donovan R. Palmer said:So when it comes to the development of the platform, I hope there are original language studies use case voices being combined along with the others that Logos targets (pastoral, devotional, etc), including the ones that the developers hold, so that Logos can continue to lead the way as it has done in recent years.
I of course completely agree.
0 -
Kristin said:
Thanks for saying this!
After the heavy hand of hiding threads and banning users on the Accordance forum, I do not participate as a register user over there anymore because this kind of management behaviour contrasts my values of how an online community should be encouraged and engaged.
With that said, I occasionally visit as an unregistered guest to find nuggets of information. I found your thread 'the truthfulness of a lexeme' to be very, very interesting. You are stirring up good conversations on both platforms. [:)]
0 -
Kristin said:
in Accordance, by contrast, it can mark points where the text disagrees. Does Logos have that function?
Yes. Click on the "Show Differences" button.
0 -
HJ. van der Wal said:
Apart from Amos 8:8 there is also a difference regarding the expression עַד־אֹ֥ור הַבֹּ֖קֶר which occurs 6 times (Judges 16:2 is not in the screenshot below). The morpho-syntactic database underlying the BHS SESB in Logos and MT-ETCBC in Accordance analyses אור in these 6 verses as a verb and not as a noun:
Interesting. Thank you.
HJ. van der Wal said:The surface text of the NA28 should be the same in both programs but the underlying databases are completely different. Imagine you have dead-tree copy of NA28 lying on your desk. There is no morphological tagging in the paper edition. In former days you could buy other paper tools in addition to the original language text, like for example an analytical key or a parsing guide (you can still find these resources in the Logos store). In Logos and in Accordance the NA28 will have its own morphological tagging. It is somewhat like having multiple analytical keys (edited by different scholars and published by different publishers) to help you read and search the Bible in the original languages. But it should come as no surprise that scholars will sometimes disagree.
Thank you very much for this analogy! This really helped me understand this a lot better. Thank you.
HJ. van der Wal said:May I ask you if you have already thought about what you will do when the next edition of Nestle-Aland will be published? Will you stay with the NA28 because that is the surface text that you have started to use or will you move on to NA29?
That's an interesting question. Yes, I would get NA29. Specifically, I would first read the notes about it and learn everything I could. Then after comparing various verses, I would go ahead and get it, and likely spend time comparing the two on my own. If I find that a more accurate mss reading has changed a word or verse or whatever, and I believe the update is valid, I would update it in my research as well, making a note of it. I would still hold onto NA28 just in case. I think it is similar to how I handled the CNTTS. When the update came out, I got that, but I didn't replace my old copy, but rather refer to them both.
0 -
Donovan R. Palmer said:
After the heavy hand of hiding threads and banning users on the Accordance forum, I do not participate as a register user over there anymore because this kind of management behaviour contrasts my values of how an online community should be encouraged and engaged.
Hi Donovan,
That is interesting to hear. I had noticed you're not over there, but I hadn't realized that had been the reason. I really miss the old forum. The first half of this year there were so many threads hidden and so many people banned, it was almost starting to feel like junior high. So I can certainly understand your reason. Hopefully things get better over there. No one has been banned for a few weeks, so hopefully that keeps up.
Donovan R. Palmer said:With that said, I occasionally visit as an unregistered guest to find nuggets of information. I found your thread 'the truthfulness of a lexeme' to be very, very interesting. You are stirring up good conversations on both platforms.
Thank you! I am glad you found it interesting! [:)]
Mark Allison said:Yes. Click on the "Show Differences" button.
Hi Mark,
Thank you for the text compare screenshot! That was helpful. [:)]
0 -
I think your Logos package included the feature to match up the greek forms for a verse. To see that, you select 'Interlinear' instead of 'Verse' in the Text Comparison header (online only).Kristin said:Thank you for the text compare screenshot!
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
DMB said:
]I think your Logos package included the feature to match up the greek forms for a verse. To see that, you select 'Interlinear' instead of 'Verse' in the Text Comparison header (online only).
Hi DMB,
Ya, it seems to include it. [:)] When I clicked on that little letter in Mark's screenshot, it worked fine. Thank you also for mentioning the Interlinear. I very, very rarely use an interlinear, but I clicked on it to check it out, and I was surprised to see "Sense." I had never seen that on an interlinear before. I am also not sure what it is. It almost looks like a "Presupposition" row, but it's nonetheless interesting.
0 -
Sense is the key into the Logos Bible Sense Lexicon which is a limited wordnet lexicon based on Word Net. The relationships shown are limited to:Kristin said:I was surprised to see "Sense."
[quote]Noun and Verb relationships:
• “Kind of” (Hypernym/Hyponym): The “kind of” relationship is between a more general and more specific sense or concept based on the formula “an x (more specific term) is a kind of y (more general term)”; for example, “a bald locust (hyponym) is a kind of locust (hypernym).”
Verb relationships:
• Causative: The causative relation is between two verb senses with one causing the other; for example, “to kill is causative of to die.”
• Passive: The passive relation is between two verb senses with the passive sense, generally, profiling the entity being acted upon as opposed to an entity performing an action; for example, “to be killed is passive of to kill.”
• Result: The result relation is between two verb senses with one being the result of the other; for example, “to be embittered is a result of to embitter.”
Adjective relationships:
• “Similar to”: The “similar to” relation is between two or more adjective senses that cluster closely together; for example, “righteous is similar to good (moral).”
• Antonym: The antonym relation is one of opposition, generally, between two adjective senses, though it can apply to other parts of speech; for example, “righteous as opposed to unrighteous.”
Relationships ignoring part of speech:
• “Pertains to”: The “pertains to” relation crosses part of speech boundaries to mark close connections between senses of different parts of speech, as opposed to “related senses,” which mark looser connections; for example, “righteous (adjective) pertains to rightly (adverb).”
• “Related senses”: The “related senses” relation marks a looser connection between senses of any part of speech. It can occur with any sense, but it often occurs with rare senses that would otherwise have few or any other connections.
Jeremy Thompson, Bible Sense Lexicon: Dataset Documentation (Bellingham, WA: Faithlife, 2015).Together with semantic domains (Louw-Nida) this is an early attempt to take advantage of the flexibility offered by computers (compared to print) that permits enhancing lexicons/dictionaries to enhance our understanding of words.
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."
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
Sense is the key into the Logos Bible Sense Lexicon which is a limited wordnet lexicon based on Word Net.
Hi MJ.,
Ya, I had gathered as such. Not Word Net specifically, but the concept, hence my "presupposition" comment. I can see why some people might find it helpful though. I had just been surprised to see it.
0 -
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."
0 -
Hi everyone,
I've got two unrelated questions.
1. Regarding the lex / lemma situation, while I understand how Accordance and Logos handle it differently, (such as how to record εἶπον, for example), is it correct that in Logos that ALL words are filed somewhere. By that I mean, in Accordance if I look for the lex of λέγω it will also capture εἶπον, but if in Logos I ALSO look for εἶπον, I will be able to capture all words. Thus, there are no words which are not tagged as showing up on a lemma search in Logos. Is this correct? (I would also like to mention that I am not referring to untagged errors, but rather an entire word which is not marked anywhere). Also, for Accordance users, this is the case for Accordance as well, correct? That apart from random errors, ALL words are accounted for under a lex somewhere. Is this correct?
2. In Accordance I can select a text (such as a biblical text or really anything, I think), and tell Accordance to speak (it does this by tapping into Mac's built in speech function, no idea how it works on a PC). Is this possible in Logos? I just tried using my Mac speech hotkey an it isn't working. (I would also like to mention that I am not referring to Logos' "Read aloud" function, as that is totally different. I am referring to just selecting a word or a few words and using the speech function).
Thanks. 0 -
Kristin said:
1. Regarding the lex / lemma situation, while I understand how Accordance and Logos handle it differently, (such as how to record εἶπον, for example), is it correct that in Logos that ALL words are filed somewhere. By that I mean, in Accordance if I look for the lex of λέγω it will also capture εἶπον, but if in Logos I ALSO look for εἶπον, I will be able to capture all words. Thus, there are no words which are not tagged as showing up on a lemma search in Logos. Is this correct? (I would also like to mention that I am not referring to untagged errors, but rather an entire word which is not marked anywhere). Also, for Accordance users, this is the case for Accordance as well, correct? That apart from random errors, ALL words are accounted for under a lex somewhere. Is this correct?
The term "word" has so many different meanings that I avoid it. However, if you are asking if every form of a lemma is documented, the answer is yes for the Bible corpus. I won't vouch that every alternative from manuscripts and fragments are captured.
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."
0 -
Kristin said:
1. Regarding the lex / lemma situation, while I understand how Accordance and Logos handle it differently, (such as how to record εἶπον, for example), is it correct that in Logos that ALL words are filed somewhere. By that I mean, in Accordance if I look for the lex of λέγω it will also capture εἶπον, but if in Logos I ALSO look for εἶπον, I will be able to capture all words. Thus, there are no words which are not tagged as showing up on a lemma search in Logos. Is this correct? (I would also like to mention that I am not referring to untagged errors, but rather an entire word which is not marked anywhere). Also, for Accordance users, this is the case for Accordance as well, correct? That apart from random errors, ALL words are accounted for under a lex somewhere. Is this correct?
Did you try the Bible Word study? The red arrow points to a little speaker icon ... press that and it will pronounce the word. And it shows word counts.
Does your library have The Lexham Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament?
It shows all Cognate words, all the forms, and for each sense a Louw Nida number, followed by the exact number of instances where it is found in the NT, and each reference.
I do not know Greek well, and I am still not sure exactly what you are doing in your work. But I am wondering why you would rely on the search feature of any software for an accurate count, when so many lexicons and reference works already give exact counts?
Is any of this helpful?
0 -
Kristin said:
By that I mean, in Accordance if I look for the lex of λέγω it will also capture εἶπον, but if in Logos I ALSO look for εἶπον, I will be able to capture all words.
Logos has root grouping of related lemma's. Bible Study Search for lemma.g:εἶπον OR root.g:λεγω has lemma results in one color with root results in another:
Right click on a word in Logos (or Verbum) shows lemma & root (in resources that have root groupings).
Keep Smiling [:)]
0 -
John said:
Did you try the Bible Word study? The red arrow points to a little speaker icon ... press that and it will pronounce the word. And it shows word counts.
Hi John,
Thank you for the screenshot. I had actually totally forgotten about the “word study,” so I appreciate it. [:)] Actually, that is not what I meant though. What I am actually trying to do is to select a random paragraph and have my computer speak to me. I had been in ANET and just wanted the computer to read one of the paragraphs, but my Mac speak hotkey seems to be disabled in Logos. I know about the “read aloud” option, but that seems to just start at the beginning and doesn’t just read the part I selected. Is there a way for it to only read what I select?John said:Does your library have The Lexham Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament? It shows all Cognate words, all the forms, and for each sense a Louw Nida number, followed by the exact number of instances where it is found in the NT, and each reference.
I apparently do. I had to check. Just to make sure I understand, this records all the words, but BDAG does as well, correct? One distinction is of course following Lowe and Nida, which I will keep in mind.
John said:I do not know Greek well, and I am still not sure exactly what you are doing in your work. But I am wondering why you would rely on the search feature of any software for an accurate count, when so many lexicons and reference works already give exact counts?
I am not actually looking for an exact count. My question is actually regarding if Logos has filed all words as some sort of lex (lemma) which is searchable within the text. In order to clarify my question, I have tried to find an example. The only example I can think of at the moment is in Hebrew, so I hope that is ok. Taking the word וְ, for example, this word is in HALOT without a problem, and in The Lexham Analytical Lexicon in Hebrew. However, these are lexicons and I am concerned with the text.If I click on וְ in Logos when it is attached to אֵ֥ת, Logos opens אֵ֥ת and gives me all the search functionality to look up אֵ֥ת. If I click on וְ in Logos when it is attached to בדל, Logos brings up בדל. Again, this is just an example, but it appears that וְ is not a word which is associated with a Logos lemma. (In Accordance when I right click on וְ I can instantly search for the lexeme of the word without a problem). So the question is, are there words in the text which are not associated with any lemma, and are just words which get looped into other words. (וְ is a sort of imperfect example, but I hope it conveys my question).The other question concerns Accordance. Using the same example, I know that וְ of course (thankfully) is associated with its own lexeme (aka a lemma in Logos). However, I am wondering if there are words which are not recorded as an independent lexeme in Accordance? Or is the idea that every word is accounted for?Logos has root grouping of related lemma's. Bible Study Search for lemma.g:εἶπον OR root.g:λεγω has lemma results in one color with root results in another
Hi Keep Smiling 4 Jesus,
Thank you for the screenshot, and that is super helpful.
My actual question is concerned with words which are sort of free-roaming lemmaless words in Logos (like described above), but this is for sure really helpful for these situations where Accordance and Logos file words differently. Right click on a word in Logos (or Verbum) shows lemma & root (in resources that have root groupings).
Oh! This is cool too! Thank you for the screenshot. [:)] It makes me happy seeing εἶπεν and λέγω together again!
Keep Smiling
This literally almost made me cry. It has been such a rough past three years it has often been hardly bearable. Thank you for the reminder.
0 -
Have you tried 'Read Aloud' and set the cursor where you want to start? I do this all the time.
0 -
Donovan R. Palmer said:
Have you tried 'Read Aloud' and set the cursor where you want to start? I do this all the time.
Hi Donovan,
Thank you for the screenshot. This "sort of" works, but not quite. In ANET it doesn't work at all. No matter what I select or where I am, the "read aloud" starts at the beginning.
Given your screenshot I tried opening a Bible just to see, and what I found is that if I highlight a section the "read aloud" does start reading there, but when it gets to the end of what I have selected it just keeps reading. Is there a way for it to only read what I select?0 -
Kristin said:
but it appears that וְ is not a word which is associated with a Logos lemma.
This is a logical impossibility (or nearly so). As you can see, I show two lemmas ...
By definition, if a word does not have a lemma, it cannot appear in a lexicon because the definition of a lemma is the (head)word of the dictionary entry.
Kristin said:with its own lexeme (aka a lemma in Logos).
Please don't equate them ... it makes me think I've failed in clear communication. [:(]
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."
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
This is a logical impossibility (or nearly so). I show two lemmas
Hi MJ,
Thank you for the screenshot. I had only noticed the lemma to the right, but now I see the searchable וְ. This still doesn't address my actual question (as וְ was only an example), but knowing how to search וְ is good to know.
MJ. Smith said:By definition, if a word does not have a lemma, it cannot appear in a lexicon because the definition of a lemma is the (head)word of the dictionary entry.
We of course agree to this (as I mentioned above in my prior post about the lemmas being in dictionaries).
MJ. Smith said:Please don't equate them ... it makes me think I've failed in clear communication.
I was connecting the two for the sake of clarifying. This thread is from an "Accordance" user, and in Accordance it is not called a "lemma" but called a "lexeme." In other words, if I search for a "lexeme" in Accordance, I would get the equivalent of the Logos lemma, and to get the equivalent of a Logos lexeme I would search for "Inflected" in Accordance. I hope this doesn't come across wrong, but I think part of the reason for communication issues is because you are not familiar with Accordance or Accordance terminology. My question had been primarily addressed to people who were familiar with Accordance, hence including Accordance terminology.
0 -
Hi Kristin
Kristin said:In other words, if I search for a "lexeme" in Accordance, I would get the equivalent of the Logos lemma, and to get the equivalent of a Logos lexeme I would search for "Inflected" in Accordance.
Apologies but I was confused by this
I thought the discussion at https://community.logos.com/forums/p/223994/1308814.aspx#1308814 and following was looking at differences in results between searching for an Accordance lexeme and a lemma in Logos.
Please help me understand this.
0 -
Kristin said:
I think part of the reason for communication issues is because you are not familiar with Accordance or Accordance terminology
You are correct I am not familiar with Accordance terminology - I am familiar with linguistics terminology. I have trouble believing Accordance doesn't use standard linguistic terminology, but it doesn't matter in this context. I'll assume you understand.
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."
0 -
Graham Criddle said:
Apologies but I was confused by this
I thought the discussion at https://community.logos.com/forums/p/223994/1308814.aspx#1308814 and following was looking at differences in results between searching for an Accordance lexeme and a lemma in Logos.
Please help me understand this.
Hi Graham,
Ya, you are correct that the link you mentioned was trying to reconcile the differences between Accordance and Logos. I mentioned in that post that I thought I needed to wait for Mark, and he was the one who explained the terminology difference to me. (I frankly don't remember if it was a comment he said on this forum, or an email, but it nonetheless got clarified). The above post sort of got resolved by coming to the conclusion that the two databases (of Accordance and Logos), just can't be reconciled, and I was advised to just keep using Accordance for my lex (aka, Logos lemma) search, and then use Logos for other things. While I am kind of concerned that I can't just pick up my work and use either program, I understand the differences better now that I understand what to keep using Accordance for. (And to be honest, some of these things are super basic. Such as copying וְ in this thread is a much simpler process in Accordance).
That all said, my question now was about every word being accounted for. I understand that all the words are in BDAG and HALOT, but rather if every word in the actual text is associated with a lemma. Of course it is grammatically (hence being in a dictionary), but I rather mean every word is associated with a lemma in the actual text, if I were to do a search. I unfortunately can't provide an example, as my question is if such a word occurs or not. Or rather, if Logos' claim is that every single word is included.
The original concern came from the difference between an Accordance lex search and the Logos lemma (as shown in the link you mentioned). Up until very recently, I thought how words were categorized by the lex (lemma...) was basically universally accepted, and realizing that is not the case has been both confusing and concerning, and I want to make sure I am not making other assumptions as I had been.
Just comparing Strongs and Lowe and Nida (which I am familiar with from Accordance), Lowe and Nida take a pretty radically different approach to filing words than Strongs, and I have always felt that words were missing from what I would consider to be the same key, and I am not sure if they are counted at all. Maybe they are, but since my impression is that everyone seems to miss stuff except an Accordance lexeme (everybody being Strongs, Kohlenberger / Mounce, Lowe and Nida, Logos lemma...) I don't want to just assume it has all been filed in some way, when in fact a random word in the text doesn't show up under any search unless directly clicking on it.
Maybe the claim is that every word is accounted for, and this can be verified in some way, but after realizing the radical methodological difference between the Accordance lexeme and Logos lemma, it just made me think I better not assume it.
I hope this makes more sense. It has been sort of challenging to express without a specific example.0
