a question from an Accordance User
Comments
-
What do I need to do in order for the chart to display the totals of Imperative and Indicative verbs in Gal. 6? Is there a way to separate them out and display them in the chart?
0 -
Mark,
If you go to Tools and type "Passage Analysis" and then open it. Then go to Morph River and enter Gal 6 and set it to verbs you will get a flow of the verbs in that pericope.
Not exactly what you were looking for, but provides you similar information without the search.
0 -
Mark Allison said:
What do I need to do in order for the chart to display the totals of Imperative and Indicative verbs in Gal. 6?
Another option - as I don't think you can do this in the Charts view
Try the Analysis view and group the results by Mood and Lemma
And I really recommend asking these types of questions in separate threads in the desktop forum. It is more likely that more people - with different insights - will see them there than in this long thread.
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.
Hi MJ,
I am still not sure if I understand, so I ran two example words as a Logos lemma and then as an Accordance lexeme. Both times the Accordance version produced more results.
Thus, if I am understanding correctly, the lexeme will always have more results than a lemma, since it doesn't include the "arbitrary rules." If this is correct, how do I run a lex in Logos?
0 -
Kristin said:
the lexeme will always have more results than a lemma, since it doesn't include the "arbitrary rules."
No, there are still differences in analysis especially of homoglyphs, etc. One has to look at the underlying interlinear tagging for each discrepancy to identify why there is a difference. I neither own Accordance nor read Hebrew. What lexemes does Accordance have for these lemmas?
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:
I neither own Accordance nor read Hebrew. What lexemes does Accordance have for these lemmas?
Hi MJ,
Regarding what lexemes Accordance uses for these lemmas, I am not sure if I understand what you mean, but if I understand your question correctly, it is אָמַר . Those vowels are confirmed by both Kohlenberger and Strongs. Perhaps I will need to wait for Mark since he was the one who said there was a difference between the Accordance lexeme vs Logos lemma, so I think he might understand it. However, in case it is helpful, here is an example in Greek where Accordance likewise shows more hits with the lexeme vs Logos' lemma.
0 -
Kristin said:
Regarding what lexemes Accordance uses for these lemmas
Logos distributes the surface text over the 6 lemmas I showed. Does Accordance combine them into a single lexeme? That would be very strange as the numbers preceding the lemma indicates different senses of the same grapheme e.g. go - to start a race vs. go - a Japanese boardgame. The surface text does not provide any information ... it is how Accordance tags the surface text lexemes vs. how Logos tags the surface text to lemmas that provides the necessary information i.e. the interlinear or its equivalent.
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:
However, in case it is helpful, here is an example in Greek where Accordance likewise shows more hits with the lexeme vs Logos' lemma.
Looking at this, and doing some further comparison, it appears that the Accordance lexeme is spanning two Logos lemmas (outlined in blue below) each of which have separate entries in lexicons (outlined in red)
A synopsis of a smart search trying to understand the difference (outlined in green above) suggests they are different forms of the same Greek verb which seems to be supported by BDAG which has, in its entry for εἶπον:
εἶπον (Hom.+)
used as 2 aor. of λέγω ‘say’ (B-D-F §101, p. 46);
William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 286.
Does this shed any light on what is going on?
0 -
Hi Graham,Graham Criddle said:Looking at this, and doing some further comparison, it appears that the Accordance lexeme is spanning two Logos lemmas (outlined in blue below) each of which have separate entries in lexicons (outlined in red)
Thank you very much for the screenshot, and yes, I think you are correct that this is the issue. In light of this, I have a couple questions. First, in the simplest way possible, could you explain the difference between a "lexeme" and "lemma"? The definition of both of them appear to be the same, but it is clear they actually differ in some way.
Yes, you are correct, thank you! This brings me to my second question though... given that εἶπον is the second aorist of λέγω, why is Logos marking these as two different lemmas? I can understand it being marked as two different keys (though dictionaries like Strongs and Thayer recognize it as the same key as λέγω), but if a lemma is a lexeme, why isn't it showing ALL forms of a word, including a second aorist?Graham Criddle said:A synopsis of a smart search trying to understand the difference (outlined in green above) suggests they are different forms of the same Greek verb which seems to be supported by BDAG which has, in its entry for εἶπον:
Then my third question would be, is there a way to find "the entire lexeme" of a word like I do in Accordance in Logos? For example, if I want to see all the instances of λέγω, including the second aorist, is there a way to do that in Logos? Also, an aspect of this question which is important, is I might not know all the forms of a word when I do the lex, so there is a limit to what I can search for manually. In other words, I know about εἶπον, but I don't always know what I am looking for with each word until I do the lex.
Yes, thank you again for the screenshot. [:)]Graham Criddle said:Does this shed any light on what is going on?
0 -
Note the lemma is often a specific form e.g. 1st person singular indicative; the lexeme is form-free.
The remainder may be of less usefulness as somehow I'm not communicating effectively the difference in approach.
Kristin said:why is Logos marking these as two different lemmas?
For exactly the same reason as BDAG so that Logos maps easily to the BDAG. Logos did not set out to create its own set of lemmas but rather tried to be compatible with the lexicons most commonly known to the users/students.
Kristin said:if a lemma is a lexeme
A lemma IS NOT a lexeme although they may frequently have the same value.
Kristin said:is there a way to find "the entire lexeme" of a word like I do in Accordance in Logos?
I doubt that this is what Accordance actually does as it implies that Accordance has limited itself to a single lexicon in each original language. As lexemes are simply an abstract concept first used in 1937, whereas lemmas are concrete for as long as lexicons have been produced, there is more variation in the identification of lexemes than there is in lemmas.
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:
Then my third question would be, is there a way to find "the entire lexeme" of a word like I do in Accordance in Logos? For example, if I want to see all the instances of λέγω, including the second aorist, is there a way to do that in Logos? Also, an aspect of this question which is important, is I might not know all the forms of a word when I do the lex, so there is a limit to what I can search for manually. In other words, I know about εἶπον, but I don't always know what I am looking for with each word until I do the lex.
I don't know enough about Greek grammar to comment with any insight on the wider questions but I did notice that in the root section of a BWS on λέγω it shows the two different Greek words as having the same meaning
It is possible that Accordance is, in some way, programatically combining these when searching for a lexeme. But I have no way of knowing if that is the case.
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
Note the lemma is often a specific form e.g. 1st person singular indicative; the lexeme is form-free.
This finally nailed down the differences for myself. Thanks!
0 -
Kristin said:
here is an example in Greek where Accordance likewise shows more hits with the lexeme vs Logos' lemma.
It comes down to how Logos and Accordance are choosing to tag words. In the screenshot below, Logos is not finding "ῥηθὲν" in Matt. 2:15 because it considers "εἶπον" to be the lemma, not "λέγω." Accordance considers "λέγω" to be the lemma. So, if you amplify to BDAG from "ῥηθὲν" in Accordance, it will take you to "λέγω." If you amplify to BDAG from "ῥηθὲν" in Logos, it will take you to the entry for "εἶπον."
But εἶπον is the aorist form of λέγω, so it makes sense that Accordance is treating λέγω as the lemma, or the lexical form of the word, even though εἶπον is also an entry. I think Logos is deciding that since εἶπον is a main entry in BDAG, then it's the word from which ῥηθὲν is derived.
So if you search for λέγω in Accordance, you'll get hits for the aorist form εἶπον, the future form ἐρῶ, and the perfect form εἴρηκα. Logos won't include any of those forms, because it considers them to be forms of the word εἶπον, not λέγω.
If you want all the forms of the word, you're probably better off performing a root search. A root search for λεγω in Logos finds 3,039 hits, and Accordance returns 3,045 hits. The discrepancy is minor, and probably comes down to tagging errors.
0 -
Mark Allison said:
It comes down to how Logos and Accordance are choosing to tag words. In the screenshot below, Logos is not finding "ῥηθὲν" in Matt. 2:15 because it considers "εἶπον" to be the lemma, not "λέγω." Accordance considers "λέγω" to be the lemma. So, if you amplify to BDAG from "ῥηθὲν" in Accordance, it will take you to "λέγω." If you amplify to BDAG from "ῥηθὲν" in Logos, it will take you to the entry for "εἶπον."
But εἶπον is the aorist form of λέγω, so it makes sense that Accordance is treating λέγω as the lemma, or the lexical form of the word, even though εἶπον is also an entry. I think Logos is deciding that since εἶπον is a main entry in BDAG, then it's the word from which ῥηθὲν is derived.
So if you search for λέγω in Accordance, you'll get hits for the aorist form εἶπον, the future form ἐρῶ, and the perfect form εἴρηκα. Logos won't include any of those forms, because it considers them to forms of the word εἶπον, not λέγω.
If you want all the forms of the word, you're probably better off performing a root search. A root search for λεγω in Logos finds 3,039 hits, and Accordance returns 3045 hits. The discrepancy is minor, and probably comes down to tagging errors.This was really helpful. It's also a good illustration of the importance of asking the right questions about the software. Some of Kristin's questions (and to be fair, some of the questions I've been wondering while learning Logos) seem to be "how do I make Logos act like Accordance". That's not really a fair question. The better question is "what am I trying to accomplish, and how can I use these two programs to do that?" Sometimes the main limiter is my own understanding of what I'm doing, not the program's ability to accomplish it. As I spend more time with Logos, I do find some limits (like the search analytics), but I'm also discovering all kinds of things that Accordance can't do. For the moment, I'm happy to have both.
0 -
Jonathan Huber said:
This was really helpful. It's also a good illustration of the importance of asking the right questions about the software. Some of Kristin's questions (and to be fair, some of the questions I've been wondering while learning Logos) seem to be "how do I make Logos act like Accordance". That's not really a fair question. The better question is "what am I trying to accomplish, and how can I use these two programs to do that?" Sometimes the main limiter is my own understanding of what I'm doing, not the program's ability to accomplish it. As I spend more time with Logos, I do find some limits (like the search analytics), but I'm also discovering all kinds of things that Accordance can't do. For the moment, I'm happy to have both.
100%
0 -
Kristin said:
Hi MJ,
I am still not sure if I understand, so I ran two example words as a Logos lemma and then as an Accordance lexeme. Both times the Accordance version produced more results.
Thus, if I am understanding correctly, the lexeme will always have more results than a lemma, since it doesn't include the "arbitrary rules." If this is correct, how do I run a lex in Logos?
Shalom Kristin!
I am correct when I assume that in Accordance you are using the Hebrew Masoretic Text with Westminster Hebrew Morphology (HMT-W4)? If you want to compare the search results you should use texts with comparable tagging. In Logos you can use the following Hebrew Bible: https://www.logos.com/product/36749/biblia-hebraica-westmonasteriensis-with-westminster-hebrew-morphology-418?queryId=78f10949b55ddda17d79732d17657532
Or if your Accordance library contains the Biblia Hebraica Suttgartensia with ETCBC morphology (MT-ETCBC) then you should use that text to get the same search results as in Logos:
0 -
HJ. van der Wal said:
I am correct when I assume that in Accordance you are using the Hebrew Masoretic Text with Westminster Hebrew Morphology (HMT-W4)? If you want to compare the search results you should use texts with comparable tagging. In Logos you can use the following Hebrew Bible: https://www.logos.com/product/36749/biblia-hebraica-westmonasteriensis-with-westminster-hebrew-morphology-418?queryId=78f10949b55ddda17d79732d17657532
Or if your Accordance library contains the Biblia Hebraica Suttgartensia with ETCBC morphology (MT-ETCBC) then you should use that text to get the same search results as in Logos:
Ooh this was helpful. It also explains why the CDCH says 115x in its summary stats for this word. It pays to read the intro material!
0 -
I would like to thank you all for having this conversation, Kristen for asking the hard questions, and everybody else for trying to answer [:)]
As an absolute beginner in Greek, I have been learning a lot just by following along and trying to make sense of it all.
I did not have any idea the difference between a Lemma or a Lexeme. It does appear that there are differences between Logos and Accordance in the way things are handled. Does not seem to be a question of right or wrong, or better or worse, but rather does the end user understand how the program works and what they are doing with it?
For someone like me with limited knowledge of the original languages, my main concern is that I might wrongly conclude I had done an exhaustive search when in fact it was not. In times past, I felt confident because using Strongs numbers produced a precise list of results with no ambiguity. But i hope to move beyond that level in the future [8-|]
The rest of what I have to say might not interest many of you, since Bibleworks is no longer available. One of the new features which was added in Bibleworks 10 was a Forms tab. It makes simple work of this. Earlier versions were also able to give you the information using one of the Lexicons, but the Forms tab put it all together.
I am giving a couple of links here in case anyone wants to see how intuitively this was done in Bibleworks 10:
Find the Forms of a Greek or Hebrew Word With the Forms Tab BW10
Using the BibleWorks 10 Forms Tab to Streamline Study and Lecture Preparation
Since Logos is still in development, maybe having a look at how Bibleworks 10 is making this so simple could provide incentive for improvement in Logos? Honestly I have not worked with Accordance enough to understand how it works, and likely never will. Maybe Accordance has a similar feature already? I would not know. I would like to move fully to Logos, but I still have trouble breaking away from Bibleworks. And now I have another reason to start using BW 10 alongside Logos.
0 -
HJ. van der Wal said:
Shalom Kristin!
I am correct when I assume that in Accordance you are using the Hebrew Masoretic Text with Westminster Hebrew Morphology (HMT-W4)? If you want to compare the search results you should use texts with comparable tagging. In Logos you can use the following Hebrew Bible: https://www.logos.com/product/36749/biblia-hebraica-westmonasteriensis-with-westminster-hebrew-morphology-418?queryId=78f10949b55ddda17d79732d17657532
Or if your Accordance library contains the Biblia Hebraica Suttgartensia with ETCBC morphology (MT-ETCBC) then you should use that text to get the same search results as in Logos:
Wow! I really have appreciated the posts about Hebrew in particular, as my knowledge of Greek is more advanced. Thank you so much everyone for pushing both these Bible software platforms and drilling into what is going on under the bonnet.
0 -
John said:
I felt confident because using Strongs numbers produced a precise list of results with no ambiguity. But i hope to move beyond that level in the future
As you progress in your Greek studies, you'll realize that Strong's is extremely limited. It doesn't even cover every word, which is why the Goodrick/Kohlenberger system was developed.
John said:One of the new features which was added in Bibleworks 10 was a Forms tab.
I'm curious what you're wanting to use the Forms tab for? The Lexham Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament might work for you. It lists every form in the NT.
0 -
Mark Allison said:
As you progress in your Greek studies, you'll realize that Strong's is extremely limited. It doesn't even cover every word, which is why the Goodrick/Kohlenbergerr system was developed.
This was one of my biggest Ah-ha's in both Logos and Accordance a while back. I like Strongs and refer to it, but we now have more exhaustive means to drill into the text which exceeds the 'Exhaustive Strong's Concordance' - which had a place of pride on my desk for many years in paper form. Again, nothing negative about it and it resulted in many hours of wonderful study, but there are limitations to take into consideration.
0 -
There’s also a morph analysis tool in Logos that might get close to the Forms analysis in BibleWorks. Layout is different but it shows the different forms. https://www.logos.com/features/morphology-charts
0 -
I just came across this thread. It makes me sad and glad at the same time.
I can’t help but believe Accordance is singing a swan song and I hate that. However, I’m glad that old time Accordance users are getting together and finding ways to adjust to Logos. When V14 was released, my brother-in-law and I saw how it was handled and bought into Logos immediately.
I have found what J. Huber said to true. You can’t expect Logos to be like Accordance. A new workflow has to be learned. It can feel clunky at times but it is an incredibly powerful program.
MP Seminars were a tremendous help to me and I would recommend them to anyone starting out with Logos.
- circuitrider (Accordance forum username)0 -
Jonathan Huber said:
There’s also a morph analysis tool in Logos that might get close to the Forms analysis in BibleWorks. Layout is different but it shows the different forms. https://www.logos.com/features/morphology-charts
Sweet! I searched for "Greek" in the Tools section and didn't find it (obviously). Logos might want to consider tagging some of the Tools with keywords that might be used in a search.
0 -
John said:
For someone like me with limited knowledge of the original languages, my main concern is that I might wrongly conclude I had done an exhaustive search when in fact it was not. In times past, I felt confident because using Strongs numbers produced a precise list of results with no ambiguity. But i hope to move beyond that level in the future
The rest of what I have to say might not interest many of you, since Bibleworks is no longer available. One of the new features which was added in Bibleworks 10 was a Forms tab. It makes simple work of this. Earlier versions were also able to give you the information using one of the Lexicons, but the Forms tab put it all together.
My experience with BibleWorks is nil but it was what my daughter-in-law used. BibleWorks simply provides a third set of choices - it does not resolve the issue. And Strong's simply adds another set of values based on very old linguistic theories and limited to a barely critical text.
My "frustration" with Bible software is that it promotes a very basic misunderstanding of how language analysis works. There is no single right answer. There is the answer based on the analysis of Tov. There is the answer based on the Perseus rules. There is the answer based on the Gramcord rules. . . . Many times these differences reflect how far back the analysis goes in history or how broad a corpus is covered. My favorite analysis because it speaks my language i.e ties most closely with my training is Beekes:
εἶπον [v.aor.] ‘say, speak’ (Il.). «IE *h1e-ue-ukw-om ‘I said’»
•VAR Epic ἔειπον, Ion., etc. also εἶπα, inf. εἰπεῖν, εἶπαι, Cret. ϝεῖπαι.
•COMP Often with prefix, e.g. ἀπ(ο)-, ἐξ-, μετ(α)-, παρ-, προ-(ϝ)ειπεῖν, -(ϝ)εῖπαι
•ETYM The Skt. aorist á-vocam ‘I spoke’, from *h1e-ue-ukw-om, points to a Greek preform *e-weukwom, whence by dissimilation *eweikwom > ἔ(ϝ)ειπον. On an uncertain trace of the digamma in an antique edition of Homer, see Kretschmer 1923: 190ff. Further, see ►ἔπος. On the meaning, use and inflexion, see Fournier 1946: 3ff., 99f., 227ff.
[ grammatical informationv. verb
aor. aorist
] grammatical information
Il. Iliad
« the origin of the word
IE There is a good Indo-European (IE) etymology. The IE root is reconstructed, and in most cases also the formation represented by the Greek etymon. If there are no cognates, but the Greek word looks Indo-European, a reconstruction has sometimes been proposed, too.
* a reconstructed item of a proto-stage
» the origin of the word
• Inflectional forms and phonological variants.
VAR Inflectional forms and phonological variants.
Epic Epicus
Ion. Ionic
Cret. Cretan
• Compounds (only the most common or etymologically relevant compounds are given).
COMP Compounds (only the most common or etymologically relevant compounds are given).
e.g. for example
• Etymological discussion.
ETYM Etymological discussion.
Skt. Sanskrit
* a reconstructed item of a proto-stage
* a reconstructed item of a proto-stage
* a reconstructed item of a proto-stage
> becomes by regular phonological development
-----------------------------
λέγω [v.] ‘to collect, gather’ (Il.; Att. prose only with prefix), ‘to count, recount’ (Il.), ‘say’ (post-Hom.). On use, mg. and inflexion see Fournier 1946: 53ff., 100ff., Chantraine BSL 41 (1940–1941): 39ff., Wackernagel 1916: 220ff. Beside it stand the synonymous and suppletive verbs ἀγορεύω, φημί, εἰπεῖν, ἐρῶ, εἴρηκα (see Seiler Glotta 32 (1952): 154f.). «IE *leǵ- ‘collect’»
•VAR Aor. λέξαι, -ασθαι, (epic ἐλέγμην, λέκτο), pass. λεχθῆναι, fut. λέξω, -ομαι, perf. λέλεγμαι, δι-είλεγμαι, συν-είλοχα (ει analogical).
•COMP Very often with prefixes like δια-, ἐκ-, ἐπι-, κατα-, συν-.
•DER 1. λόγος [m.] ‘computation, account, esteem, reason; speech, word, statement’ (Ο 393, α 56); see Fournier 1946: 217ff., Boeder Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte 4 (1959): 82ff.; also from prefixed compounds, e.g. διά-, κατά-, ἐπί-, σύλ-λογος (to διαλέγομαι, etc.), also in hypostases like ἀνά-, παρά-λογος (to ἀνὰ, παρὰ λόγον).
From λόγος: a. diminutives: λογ-ίδιον, -άριον (Att.), -αρίδιον (pap.). b. adjectives: λογάς [m., f.] ‘selected’, substantivized ‘choice soldier, etc.’ (IA), semantically rather to λέγω, cf. Chantraine 1933: 351; λόγιος ‘notable’ (Pi., etc.), τὸ λόγιον ‘oracle’ (IA); on the development of mg. E. Orth, Logios (Leipzig 1926); λόγιμος ‘worth mention, notable’ (Hdt., pap.), usually ἐλλόγιμος (to ἐν λόγῳ); λογικός ‘regarding reason, etc., logical’ (Philol., Hell.); λογαῖος ‘chosen’ (Str. 1, 3, 18; after Ibyc. 22), perhaps to λογή, see 2.; c. λογάδην [adv.] ‘by accidental selection’ (Th.; cf. λογάς). d. substantives: λογεύς [m.] ‘orator, prose writer’ (Critias, Plu., sch.) with λογεῖον ‘speakers’ place, scene’ (Delos IIIa); κατα-, ἐκ-, συλ-λογεύς from κατάλογος, ἐκλογή, etc.; e. verbs: λογίζομαι [v.] ‘to count, calculate, consider, estimate’ (IA), often with prefix, ἀνα-, etc., with λογ-ισμός, -ισμα, -ιστής, -ιστεύω, -ιστικός, etc.; λογεύω [v.] ‘to collect taxes’, also with ἐπι-, ἐκ-, (pap., inscr.), with λογεία, λόγ-ευμα, -ευτής, -ευτήριον.
2. λογή [f.] ‘reasoning, way’ (= MoGr.; only late pap.; LSJ and DELG translate ‘attention, heed’); isolated from compounds with ἐκ-, κατα-, συν-, δια-, etc. (IA, etc.)?
3. λέξις [f.] ‘reason, way of speech, diction, style, (specific) word, phrase’, also with δια-, ἐκ-, κατα-, (Att., etc.); thence λεξίδιον, -εί- (Arr., Gal.), Lat. lexīdium; see Leumann Sprache 1 (1949): 205; λεξικόν (scil. βιβλίον) ‘containing λέξεις, lexicon’ (AB, Phot.).
4. λέγμα· τὸ εἰπεῖν ‘speaking’ (H.), ἐπίλεγμα ‘excerpt’ (pap.), κατά-λεγμα ‘tragic song’ (Sm., Al.), cf. καταλέγεσθαι· ὀδύρεσθαι τὸν τεθνεῶτα ‘to bewail the deceased’ (H.).
5. διάλεκτος (to δια-λέγομαι) ‘speech, dialect’ (IA) with (δια-, ἐκ-)λεκτικός ‘capable of speaking, etc.’ (Att., etc.: λέξις, λέγω).
•ETYM The thematic root present λέγω, from which all stem forms and nominal derivatives are derived, is identical with Lat. legō ‘to collect, etc.’. Also related is Alb. mb-ledh ‘to collect, harvest’, which points to a palatal -ǵ-. A synonymous root *les- is found in Germanic, Baltic, and Hittite, e.g. MoHG lesen, Go. lisan ‘to collect, harvest’, Lith. lèsti, isg. lesù ‘to pick, eat picking’ (beside lasýti ‘to collect, select’), Hitt. lešš-zi / lišš- ‘to pick, gather’, (Hitt. līšāe-zi is unclear; cf. Kloekhorst 2008 s.v.), but the relation between *les- and *leǵ- is unclear. See ►λώγη.
[ grammatical information is given between square bracketsv. verb
] grammatical information is given between square brackets
Il. Iliad
Att. Attic
Il. Iliad
post-Hom. post-Homeric
BSL Bulletin de la Societé Linguistique de Paris
« the origin of the word
IE There is a good Indo-European (IE) etymology. The IE root is reconstructed, and in most cases also the formation represented by the Greek etymon. If there are no cognates, but the Greek word looks Indo-European, a reconstruction has sometimes been proposed, too.
* a reconstructed item of a proto-stage
» the origin of the word
• Inflectional forms and phonological variants.
VAR Inflectional forms and phonological variants.
Aor. aorist
epic Epicus
pass. passive
fut. future
perf. perfect
• Compounds (only the most common or etymologically relevant compounds are given).
COMP Compounds (only the most common or etymologically relevant compounds are given).
• Derivatives.
DER Derivatives.
[ grammatical information is given between square brackets
m. masculine
] grammatical information is given between square brackets
e.g. for example
Att. Attic
[ grammatical information is given between square brackets
m. masculine
f. feminine
] grammatical information is given between square brackets
IA Ionic-Attic
cf. compare
Pi. Pindarus
IA Ionic-Attic
E. Euripides
Hdt. Herodotus
Philol. Philolaus
Str. Strabo
[ grammatical information is given between square brackets
adv. adverb
] grammatical information is given between square brackets
Th. Thucydides
cf. compare
[ grammatical information is given between square brackets
m. masculine
] grammatical information is given between square brackets
[ grammatical information is given between square brackets
v. verb
] grammatical information is given between square brackets
IA Ionic-Attic
[ grammatical information is given between square brackets
v. verb
] grammatical information is given between square brackets
inscr. inscription(s)
[ grammatical information is given between square brackets
f. feminine
] grammatical information is given between square brackets
LSJ A Greek-English lexicon, compiled by Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott; revised and augmented throughout by Henry Stuart Jones with the assistance of Roderick McKenzie, and with the co-operation of many scholars. Oxford, 19779.
DELG Pierre Chantraine, Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque: histoire des mots (terminé par O. Masson, J.-L. Perpillou, J. Taillardat, avec le concours de F. Bader, J. Irigoin, D. Lecco, P. Monteil, sous la dir. de M. Lejeune). Paris, 1968–1980.
IA Ionic-Attic
[ grammatical information is given between square brackets
f. feminine
] grammatical information is given between square brackets
Att. Attic
Gal. Galenus
Lat. Latin
AB Anecdota Graeca, v. I
H. Hesychius
Sm. Symmachus
cf. compare
H. Hesychius
IA Ionic-Attic
Att. Attic
• Etymological discussion.
ETYM Etymological discussion.
Lat. Latin
Alb. Albanian
* a reconstructed item of a proto-stage
e.g. for example
MoHG Modern High German
Go. Gothic
Lith. Lithuanian
Hitt. Hittite
Hitt. Hittite
cf. compare
s.v. sub voce
* a reconstructed item of a proto-stage
* a reconstructed item of a proto-stage
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 -
Mark Allison said:
Logos might want to consider tagging some of the Tools with keywords that might be used in a search.
They are essentially doing this for the Help Center feature.
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 -
Excellent! I had forgotten about these. Thank you for that link.
0 -
Graham Criddle said:
I don't know enough about Greek grammar to comment with any insight on the wider questions but I did notice that in the root section of a BWS on λέγω it shows the two different Greek words as having the same meaning... It is possible that Accordance is, in some way, programatically combining these when searching for a lexeme. But I have no way of knowing if that is the case.
Hi Graham,
Thanks for the screenshot. Ya, I think Accordance sees it as the same lex since one of the words is the aorist of the other. So it seems the same to me, which is why I was concerned about Logos dividing it. (Though I can understand why Logos does divide it).
Mark Allison said:It comes down to how Logos and Accordance are choosing to tag words. In the screenshot below, Logos is not finding "ῥηθὲν" in Matt. 2:15 because it considers "εἶπον" to be the lemma, not "λέγω." Accordance considers "λέγω" to be the lemma. So, if you amplify to BDAG from "ῥηθὲν" in Accordance, it will take you to "λέγω." If you amplify to BDAG from "ῥηθὲν" in Logos, it will take you to the entry for "εἶπον."
Hi Mark,
Thanks for clarifying. I appreciate hearing your perspective as an avid Accordance user. It is true that BDAG goes to εἶπον in Logos, but as we agree, BDAG agrees it is a 2nd aorist. Given this, I would agree with Accordance on this one, as I see the 2nd aorist of a word as the same word it is the second aorist of. That said, I find it intriguing that Mounce doesn't have a separate entry for εἶπον, as he often creates new keys Strongs combined.
Mark Allison said:If you want all the forms of the word, you're probably better off performing a root search. A root search for λεγω in Logos finds 3,039 hits, and Accordance returns 3,045 hits. The discrepancy is minor, and probably comes down to tagging errors.
If I do a root search, that would capture more then just the lex though, right? So it seems like the only way to replicate the lex is to do so in Accordance. Is this correct? (This matters since I am doing pinpoint counting of words as part of my work. So a lower number or higher number is a concern).
Jonathan Huber said:l. It's also a good illustration of the importance of asking the right questions about the software. Some of Kristin's questions (and to be fair, some of the questions I've been wondering while learning Logos) seem to be "how do I make Logos act like Accordance". That's not really a fair question. The better question is "what am I trying to accomplish, and how can I use these two programs to do that?"
Hi Jonathan,
I would just like to clarify that my fundamental questions are not how to make Logos "act like Accordance." My question is "how do I continue my work in Logos / is it possible to accomplish my work in Logos?" For longer than the past few years I have been doing extremely technical research which is catalogued according to the lex as found in Accordance. As any technical work, details matter, and the exact number of instances of a lex is critical. If Logos' "lemma" is different from Accordance's "lexeme" it would create catastrophic number issues with the count of various words. If research is started with Accordance's lexeme, that is fine, and if research is started with Logos' lemma, that is probably also fine. But somewhat obviously if there is a discrepancy in these two systems, I can't just move my research elsewhere without resolving number issues, as every word needs to be accounted for. I agree if someone is doing something other than technical research, it wouldn't be such a big deal to jump platforms. I hope that helps clarify why I feel my questions are "fair" as you mentioned.
MJ. Smith said:My "frustration" with Bible software is that it promotes a very basic misunderstanding of how language analysis works. There is no single right answer. There is the answer based on the analysis of Tov. There is the answer based on the Perseus rules. There is the answer based on the Gramcord rules.
Hi MJ,
Ya, that is for sure my impression as well. If I had started with Logos and had been doing research all these years, then I tried to move to Accordance, I would have the same issues just in reverse. I just need to make sure I can continue to have consistency with categorization.
0 -
HJ. van der Wal said:
Shalom Kristin!
I am correct when I assume that in Accordance you are using the Hebrew Masoretic Text with Westminster Hebrew Morphology (HMT-W4)? If you want to compare the search results you should use texts with comparable tagging. In Logos you can use the following Hebrew Bible: https://www.logos.com/product/36749/biblia-hebraica-westmonasteriensis-with-westminster-hebrew-morphology-418?queryId=78f10949b55ddda17d79732d17657532
Shalom HJ,
Thank you for bringing this to my attention! I think I sort of knew it when I was buying stuff, but it had since been pushed to the back of my mind since I had heard the two texts are basically the same. Anyway, you are correct, I am using HMT-W4 in Accordance, and maybe that is part of the issue. I will take a look at the link. [:)]
John said:I would like to thank you all for having this conversation, Kristen for asking the hard questions, and everybody else for trying to answer
As an absolute beginner in Greek, I have been learning a lot just by following along and trying to make sense of it all.
That's great to hear! [:)]
John said:For someone like me with limited knowledge of the original languages, my main concern is that I might wrongly conclude I had done an exhaustive search when in fact it was not. In times past, I felt confident because using Strongs numbers produced a precise list of results with no ambiguity. But i hope to move beyond that level in the future
I think we have all been there. [:)] When I first started, I made that same mistake about Strongs. Even if you aren't at the point of searching for lexemes (or lemmas...), you can be encouraged that you are aware of Strong's limitations. I still love Strongs, but I have a more realistic expectation, and I can thus better appreciate the true advantages of Strongs.
Thanks for the BW links. I personally got burned by BW9, but I know a lot of people still use it.
Jerry T said:I just came across this thread. It makes me sad and glad at the same time.
That's how I feel too.
Jerry T said:MP Seminars were a tremendous help to me and I would recommend them to anyone starting out with Logos.
Same here! I really wish I had seen that day one. Thanks, circuitrider. [:)]
0 -
Kristin said:
I have been doing extremely technical research which is catalogued according to the lex as found in Accordance. As any technical work, details matter, and the exact number of instances of a lex is critical
If this is what you want, most of what we have been discussing is irrelevant. What you need to know is:
- the precise text that Accordance is analyzing e.g. NA28 with no variants
- the precise coding system that Accordance is using e.g. Friberg, Swanson, ...
For Hebrew I can find "The Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia with Apparatus and tagging states that it has 'Groves-Wheeler Westminster Hebrew Morphology 4.14'." We need equivalent information for the texts you are using in Accordance.
To the extent that you cannot search precisely the same text with exactly the same coding system with a known reliability of the coding, you are unable to ensure that the data is constant. There are other research tactics that allow for more inconsistency in the data OR generate the data in one fell swoop and then analyze the raw data.
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
