a question from an Accordance User
Comments
-
The learning continues: The VISUAL FILTER and INLINE search that I ran earlier today with the LSB and NA28 (Is there a way to change your "hit" highlights? - Logos Forums), well, I ran the same search today in the Old Testament trying to get the hits to show up in a similar way as Accordance, and the only Hebrew Bible that I could get the highlighted hits to show up was with the Lexham Hebrew Bible. NONE of the BHS Bibles would produce highlighted INLINE SEARCH hits while performing an INLINE SEARCH of a Hebrew lemma in an English Bible. Just a heads up!
0 -
Brian Leathers said:
NONE of the BHS Bibles would produce highlighted INLINE SEARCH hits while performing an INLINE SEARCH of a Hebrew lemma in an English Bible.
Yes - this is because they have different morphologies
0 -
Graham Criddle said:
I don't know what those terms mean in an Accordance context but the mapping doesn't "sound" quite right.
Does this help at all?
The box outlined in red below is a navigation box - enter a new Bible reference to update the Bible to that place
And you get different navigation options in different types of books - in an encyclopedia, for example, you will get options to navigate to headwords (titles of articles) or page number (if the book supports page numbers)
The search box below the navigation box opens the Inline Search bar - which gives options for running Book, Bible or Morph style searches. This provides the ability to filter the display of your Bible (or other book) based on the search terms.
While the Bible search option (in fact all of them) can do single word or phrase lookup, it supports searching with the full range of Logos tagging as well.
Hi Graham,
Thank you very much for the detailed screenshots. That was very helpful. I think you and Mark were both correct that I was mixing and matching those two search functions.
I think it will take me a little bit to really get used to it, but I think I fundamentally understand it now... I think. The first top search thing is basically talking about the range. So in the first screenshot the biblical range is in John, then in the second search under it, it is clarified what is searched for. So for example, Jesus talking to Peter IN JOHN. To test this, I changed the first search to Mt-Jn, and now it is highlighting stuff in Matthew. So I think I understand it. I will post a screenshot in case I am totally off.
I will need to look closer at your screenshots and play with it a little, but right off the bat I have two related questions about the part what is searched for:
1. The "speaker" and "addressee" is super unnatural for me. The "speaker" is normally the "subject" or "nominative" and the "addressee" is normally the "direct object" or "accusative." I tried running the search like that, replacing "speaker" with "subject" and replacing "addressee" with "direct object" but I got an error message. Is there a way to use familiar grammatical terms?
2. If not, and these are set commands, is there a list of what commands work somewhere? I don't think I would have guessed "addressee" in a thousand years.
0 -
Kristin said:
1. The "speaker" and "addressee" is super unnatural for me. The "speaker" is normally the "subject" or "nominative" and the "addressee" is normally the "direct object" or "accusative." I tried running the search like that, replacing "speaker" with "subject" and replacing "addressee" with "direct object" but I got an error message. Is there a way to use familiar grammatical terms?
Speaker and addressee apply only to direct speech and therefore are much narrower than the terms you wish to equate them to. They are documented in the Help document and, IIRC, in the help build into the search panel.
subject (grammatical role) and agent (semantic role) are available in the clause search. Nominative and accusative are available in the morph search. speaker and addressee are standard Logos tagging terms which are applied only to direct speech i.e. some preliminary analysis of the text has been done in order for the user to get accurate results rather than approximate results to screen for usefulness.
Kristin said:is there a list of what commands work somewhere?
Not a complete list as it is ever changing and some are resource specific. However, the Help file, the built in Search panel Help, and the wiki all beat the common ones into your head as well as pointing you towards many of the less common. A snippet from the Search panel built in help:
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:
Speaker and addressee apply only to direct speech and therefore are much narrower than the terms you wish to equate them to. They are documented in the Help document and, IIRC, in the help build into the search panel.
subject (grammatical role) and agent (semantic role) are available in the clause search. Nominative and accusative are available in the morph search. speaker and addressee are standard Logos tagging terms which are applied only to direct speech i.e. some preliminary analysis of the text has been done in order for the user to get accurate results rather than approximate results to screen for usefulness.
If this forum had likes, I'd hit it a bunch of times for this post. The speaker/addressee/etc kinds of searches in Logos are very cool.
0 -
100%
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
Speaker and addressee apply only to direct speech and therefore are much narrower than the terms you wish to equate them to. They are documented in the Help document and, IIRC, in the help build into the search panel.
Hours and hours and hours of fun... but warning, some accuse me of being a Bible nerd!
0 -
Kristin said:Hi BKMitchell,
I am wondering that too. I tried a few things but can't get a consistent result. Also... btw... do you intend for the vav to be there at the front?
The vav is not important In the example mentioned before I would basically just like to be able to find words that have the two accents. For example:
Genesis 5:29 (זֶ֞֠ה )
Leviticus 10:4 ( קִ֠רְב֞וּ )
Ezekiel 48:10 ( וּ֠לְאֵ֜לֶּה and וְיָ֙מָּה֙ )
Zephaniah 2:15 ( זֹ֞֠את )
I was (and still am) curious if Logos could do this, but so far it seems like no one (at least on the forums) has run this type of search.
חַפְּשׂוּ בַּתּוֹרָה הֵיטֵב וְאַל תִּסְתַּמְּכוּ עַל דְּבָרַי
0 -
Hey BKMitchell, would this Interactive tool help you in your Hebrew searching?
0 -
Hi Kristin
Kristin said:I think it will take me a little bit to really get used to it, but I think I fundamentally understand it now... I think. The first top search thing is basically talking about the range. So in the first screenshot the biblical range is in John, then in the second search under it, it is clarified what is searched for. So for example, Jesus talking to Peter IN JOHN. To test this, I changed the first search to Mt-Jn, and now it is highlighting stuff in Matthew. So I think I understand it. I will post a screenshot in case I am totally off.
No, this is not quite right
The first box - the navigation box - is simply the current location in the Bible. So, in my screenshot, the Bible is open to John 1:1-51. It isn't imposing any contraints on any subsequent inline search.
The reason search results show starting from John is that was where the Bible was open to when I ran the Inline Search (which goes back to the discussion we had yesterday).
Kristin said:1. The "speaker" and "addressee" is super unnatural for me. The "speaker" is normally the "subject" or "nominative" and the "addressee" is normally the "direct object" or "accusative." I tried running the search like that, replacing "speaker" with "subject" and replacing "addressee" with "direct object" but I got an error message. Is there a way to use familiar grammatical terms?
I know MJ addressed this in her response but I wanted to clarify that the speaker and addressee terms are examples of specific tagging carried out by Logos and available in their datasets.
0 -
Graham Criddle said:
No, this is not quite right
The first box - the navigation box - is simply the current location in the Bible. So, in my screenshot, the Bible is open to John 1:1-51. It isn't imposing any contraints on any subsequent inline search.
Hi Graham,
I see, thank you for clarifying.
Graham Criddle said:I know MJ addressed this in her response but I wanted to clarify that the speaker and addressee terms are examples of specific tagging carried out by Logos and available in their datasets.
Thanks to both you and MJ for the clarification. As MJ mentioned, the Logos words are more narrow than what I am looking for, so I will probably avoid most of them. However, the strongs: is super helpful. [:)]
0 -
Kristin said:
However, the strongs: is super helpful.
Ah, I think we've hit the major distinction between us - I use Logos tagging heavily, prefer semantic to either grammatical or morphological analysis, and never, ever use Strongs [8-|] So always take my advice with the proviso that we use quite different tactics to get to the same point.
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 -
Brian Leathers said:Hey BKMitchell, would this Interactive tool help you in your Hebrew searching?
Thanks for the reply!
Just to let you know I have (1) The Lexham Hebrew Bible: Cantillations Analysis Dataset, (2) The Hebrew Cantillations diagrams and (3) The Lexham Hebrew Bible: Cantillation Analysis Graphs.
However, I as of yet have not figured out how I would go about running queries on these databases.
How would one find all the cases where a word in the Hebrew Bible has two accents?
How would one do linear proximity searches for accent pairs or patterns/strings of accents?
How would one included boolean operators in their accent searches?
Once again thank you so much for your reply!
חַפְּשׂוּ בַּתּוֹרָה הֵיטֵב וְאַל תִּסְתַּמְּכוּ עַל דְּבָרַי
0 -
Kristin said:
Thanks to both you and MJ for the clarification. As MJ mentioned, the Logos words are more narrow than what I am looking for, so I will probably avoid most of them. However, the strongs: is super helpful.
@Kristin - I think I mentioned in an earlier post that the tagging in Logos in some ways makes Strongs obsolete. That was perhaps a poor choice of words, but the point I was trying to make is that Logos has brought in a number of avenues to study, in addition to Strongs. Strongs as effective as it was for its day, had an approach and limitations that further studies and technology has pushed the boundary from. You can still quite effectively study with a Strong's orientation in Logos, but what might seem like distractions, are these other avenues.
As this has developed in Logos, this was been a big shift for me. However, much like I have not picked up my Thompson Chain Reference Bible for years, I rarely pursue studies with Strongs as my pillar approach. I still reference them in my workflows and my information panel, and I refer to Strong's oriented resources (partly for historic continuity), but it is part of a greater tapestry of pursuit. This is not to say my way is right. It is also not to say that this is the way I will be studying in five years either. Study and research is a bit of a wonderful roam.
What is interesting in your in your posts is from fresh eyes, and a fresh approach, what you have found easy, but also more difficult, in using this Swiss Army knife efficiently to achieve your studies from your approach. I think your post about how many steps it takes to accomplish a certain workflow is a very helpful provocation to make the software more efficient. We have also been discussing other elements about the UI such as renaming tabs, tab groups and screen space utilisation through more granular text controls. Obviously, this has at times been very focused at our use case in language studies, and Logos will need to factor this in with others who approach the software differently.
I think that what you bring to the community is and will help us become better not at just giving feed back on improving the programme accordingly, but also in how we study. Keep up the great posts. I am also very impressed with the Logosians that have jumped in to explain how you might achieve some of your objectives in the software. All of this has caused me to think. I have learned some new things and have been sparked to pursue some new ideas as a result of this mega-thread, and that makes Bible software and the community exciting again.
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
Ah, I think we've hit the major distinction between us - I use Logos tagging heavily, prefer semantic to either grammatical or morphological analysis, and never, ever use Strongs
So always take my advice with the proviso that we use quite different tactics to get to the same pointHi MJ,
Ya, I think the distinction you raise is a good one. [:)] Personally, in Accordance I "search for lex" "search for inflected" or enter a Strongs number. After that I sometimes check the verses within that search with certain tags (such as 2nd pl masc, or Qal or Piel or whatever). But I don't ever do any of this before running a basic lex search. I know Accordance has the capability to filter starting results with tags like you mentioned (though Accordances are named a little different), but I really don't use that feature in Accordance.
Donovan R. Palmer said:Kristin - I think I mentioned in an earlier post that the tagging in Logos in some ways makes Strongs obsolete. That was perhaps a poor choice of words, but the point I was trying to make is that Logos has brought in a number of avenues to study, in addition to Strongs. Strongs as effective as it was for its day, had an approach and limitations that further studies and technology has pushed the boundary from. You can still quite effectively study with a Strong's orientation in Logos, but what might seem like distractions, are these other avenues.
Hi Donovan,
No worries, it had been clear what you meant when you wrote it. Strongs is in fact a very old system, and I can understand how Logos has perhaps improved on how words are labeled. Strongs is also for sure not infallible, and there are in fact some unique words which Strongs doesn't have a key for. That said, I have lots of charts and tables and such and have used Strongs for years as a simple identification. So even if I have done my work exclusively starting in the original language, when I want to make a note, I go hunting for the Strongs number just to tag it. I also like Kohlenberger/Mounce, but they have their own keying, so I often need to convert it back to Strongs for my system. Strongs has his issues, but he has generally worked well for me.
When I first discovered how in Logos I can find a Strongs key by (as an example) "strongs:H559" (and thank God also "strongs:H0559"!), it felt sort of clunky compared to Accordance only needing me to type the normal "[KEY H0559]". However, I guess both Accordance and Logos are adding stuff to his key, just in different ways. My personal files are all [KEY H0559], but searching it in Logos in the new format is not insurmountable.
Donovan R. Palmer said:. I think your post about how many steps it takes to accomplish a certain workflow is a very helpful provocation to make the software more efficient.... I think that what you bring to the community is and will help us become better not at just giving feed back on improving the programme accordingly, but also in how we study. Keep up the great posts.
Thank you! [:)]
Donovan R. Palmer said:We have also been discussing other elements about the UI such as renaming tabs, tab groups and screen space utilisation through more granular text controls.
That would be great!
Donovan R. Palmer said:I am also very impressed with the Logosians that have jumped in to explain how you might achieve some of your objectives in the software.
I have been too. This thread has been extremely helpful to me, and I am glad it has been helpful to so many other people as well. Like you, I have also appreciated the energy it has. [:)]
0 -
I really like searching in a Bible pane rather than using the Search pane. But I thought to search for a Greek or Hebrew word in an English text I had to type something like "lemma.g:whatever."
Turns out all I need to do is type g: or h: or even a: (for Aramaic). Makes it so much easier!0 -
Mark Allison said:
I really like searching in a Bible pane rather than using the Search pane. But I thought to search for a Greek or Hebrew word in an English text I had to type something like "lemma.g:whatever."
Turns out all I need to do is type g: or h: or even a: (for Aramaic). Makes it so much easier!👍
0 -
Mark Allison said:
I really like searching in a Bible pane rather than using the Search pane. But I thought to search for a Greek or Hebrew word in an English text I had to type something like "lemma.g:whatever." Turns out all I need to do is type g: or h: or even a: (for Aramaic). Makes it so much easier!
That's a huge improvement! Thanks! [:)]
0 -
So I decided to play around with Mark's discovery that you can skip that whole lemma thing, and while it worked, I have two questions.
First, I just want to basically confirm and make sure I am not misunderstanding things. That little blue wheel is the same as searching for a lex in Accordance, and the little root symbol is obviously the same as searching for the root in Accordance. Is this correct?
Also, why is Logos highlighting random words which appear to be disconnected to the search?
0 -
Kristin said:
That little blue wheel is the same as searching for a lex in Accordance, and the little root symbol is obviously the same as searching for the root in Accordance. Is this correct?
The icons are for identification not for performing an action. The circle means "lemma", the square root means "root", etc.
One needs a view of the visual filters to identify why something is highlighted. e.g.
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:
The circle means "lemma", the square root means "root", etc.
Hi MJ,
I am sorry for not being clear, ya, I know that the circle means "lemma" but that isn't terminology I've used in Accordance, and I am trying to understand what it means. The Logos "root" is understandably equivalent to the Accordance "root," but is the Logos "lemma" equivalent to the Accordance "lex"?
0 -
Kristin said:
but is the Logos "lemma" equivalent to the Accordance "lex"
"lemma" is the standard linguistic term for a dictionary or lexicon headword/entry. I don't know what Accordance means by "lex" but if I were to encounter it, I would assume it was short for "lexeme" which is the linguistic term for the unit of lexical meaning that underlies a set of words that are related through inflection. They are closely related but not identical.
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:
but is the Logos "lemma" equivalent to the Accordance "lex"?
Yes. Technically a lexical form and a lemma are not identical, but in Accordance terminology they are.
0 -
MJ. Smith said:Kristin said:
That little blue wheel is the same as searching for a lex in Accordance, and the little root symbol is obviously the same as searching for the root in Accordance. Is this correct?
The icons are for identification not for performing an action. The circle means "lemma", the square root means "root", etc.
One needs a view of the visual filters to identify why something is highlighted. e.g.
I know there is work underway with the dynamic toolbar, but these configuration panels are a little obscure for new users and cumbersome in how they function.
Similar to the insights panel which appears on the side, I have often wondered if a side panel for formatting would be helpful. The benefit of this is that you could leave the panel open while making tweaks to all these controls and see their effects without having to close and reopen these pop up panels.
So perhaps the sidebar options would be Display, Translate, Summarize, Insights
0 -
Mark Allison said:
I really like searching in a Bible pane rather than using the Search pane.
Mark Allison If you don't mind I am curious as to why? Is the Bible pane more advantageous or does it have different or more options?
חַפְּשׂוּ בַּתּוֹרָה הֵיטֵב וְאַל תִּסְתַּמְּכוּ עַל דְּבָרַי
0 -
BKMitchell said:Mark Allison said:
I really like searching in a Bible pane rather than using the Search pane.
Mark Allison If you don't mind I am curious as to why? Is the Bible pane more advantageous or does it have different or more options?
1) It's similar to the search experience in Accordance, which I've been using for 25 years, so there's a comfort factor.
2) I don't have to open up a separate pane to perform a search. I can stay where I'm already working.
3) If I perform the search in the Search pane, the results don't allow me to see the morphological tagging.
4) Related to #3, if I see I word that I'd take a closer look at, I can triple-click it to open a lexicon. Can't do that in the Search pane.
5) If I want to add a note to a verse, I can do that in the Bible pane, but not the Search pane.
6) If I want to highlight a verse, word, or phrase, I can do that in the Bible pane, but not the Search pane.
Those are the reasons that come immediately to mind; there are probably more.
The search pane definitely has its place. If I want to compare multiple texts, the Grid view in the Search pane is really cool.0 -
Mark Allison said:
Those are the reasons that come immediately to mind; there are probably more.
Thank you for your very clear explanation!
חַפְּשׂוּ בַּתּוֹרָה הֵיטֵב וְאַל תִּסְתַּמְּכוּ עַל דְּבָרַי
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
"lemma" is the standard linguistic term for a dictionary or lexicon headword/entry. I don't know what Accordance means by "lex" but if I were to encounter it, I would assume it was short for "lexeme"
Hi MJ,
Ya, by "lex" I mean "lexeme." It is the terminology I'm familiar with from Accordance, and also was taught when I studied the languages.
Mark Allison said:Yes. Technically a lexical form and a lemma are not identical, but in Accordance terminology they are.
Hi Mark,
I just wanted to check with you since you are familiar with both programs. While it sounds like the lex and Logos lemma are very similar, you said they are not identical. Could you clarify how they are not identical?
0 -
A lexeme is the abstract unit of vocabulary that represents a set of words with the same meaning, usually a set of words differing by morphology (or variant spellings). A lemma is a specific word form chosen to represent a lexeme as the dictionary form of a word - i.e. chosen by the arbitrary rules of the specific lexographer. The same lexeme may be placed in different lemmas in different dictionaries.
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:
A lexeme is the abstract unit of vocabulary that represents a set of words with the same meaning, usually a set of words differing by morphology (or variant spellings). A lemma is a specific word form chosen to represent a lexeme as the dictionary form of a word - i.e. chosen by the arbitrary rules of the specific lexographer. The same lexeme may be placed in different lemmas in different dictionaries.
Thanks M.J. I was wondering the same question Kristen asked. Helpful.
0
