a question from an Accordance User
Comments
-
MJ. Smith said:
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, ...
MJ is correct. Helen Brown would know for sure, since I believe she's responsible for all the original Greek tagging, but I don't know if she's on the Accordance forums any more. David Lang would probably know, and he still works for the company.
Other than that, nobody who works at Accordance would have the technical or institutional knowledge to know the answer to your question.0 -
Mark Allison said:
Other than that, nobody who works at Accordance would have the technical or institutional knowledge to know the answer to your question.
Slightly off topic, but relevant even for Logos as they plot their future. Yesterday I was talking to a friend about an organisation that we both love that has lost a lot of it's expertise and historic knowledge. You can't put a price on this and it can be a bit like a frog in a pan that is slowly moving towards boiling. Through a growing set of challenges, the light is starting to switch on that they have had a massive brain drain, but leadership could have recognised and mitigated it five years ago.
Similarly the missed targets in Accordance are not just about over promising and underdelivering on version 14 - this is just the symptom. It is the loss of the technical and institutional knowledge behind this that is scary. You don't rebuild that over night. And to make the storm perfect, when you shake the trust and reputation for quality of your most loyal users, you don't rebuild that overnight either.
So however, Logos navigates the its transition and the future, people, people, people need to be the top priority and the leadership through which you build your team.
Interesting days for the Bible software space!
0 -
Kristin said:
I had heard the two texts are basically the same. Anyway, you are correct, I am using HMT-W4
Logos has the Westminster morphology 4.18 (and of course other tagged Hebrew texts, too)
NOTE: The last version of the Westminster morphology that Logos Bible Software released was version 4.2. The version number is meant to be read as an integer, not a decimal, so the 4.18 represents a significantly newer version (think of version 4.2 as version two of the fourth edition, and 4.18 as version 18 of the fourth edition). Generally, the even-numbered releases are intended for public release, so the move from 4.2 to 4.18 is a jump of 8 releases and includes approximately 10 years’ worth of improvements!
While in Accordance has
- HMT-W4 is tagged with the Groves-Wheeler Westminster Hebrew Morphology 4.20 version 2.2
- BHS-T is tagged with the Groves-Wheeler Westminster Hebrew Morphology 4.14 version 2.5
A Sofware called The Word has
Groves-Wheeler Westminster Hebrew Morphology version 4.22
And of course an even newer update to Groves-Wheeler Westminster Hebrew Morphology exist
חַפְּשׂוּ בַּתּוֹרָה הֵיטֵב וְאַל תִּסְתַּמְּכוּ עַל דְּבָרַי
0 -
Mark Allison said:
you'll realize that Strong's is extremely limited
Yes I have heard that a few times before [:)]
My first experience with Strongs was with a printed edition. This was back when MS-DOS 6 was the latest operating system.
As far as learning Greek, I have never been a full time student, so progress has been very slow. I have spent a lot of money and have very good resources, and Lord willing I will have more time in the future to learn how to properly use them.
After I made the last post, I was thinking that somebody would certainly show me how to do it in Logos ... thanks [Y]
As to the topic of the thread ... I am still learning how imperfect the tools we have available are. I guess people with a lot of experience know, but newcomers do not understand a lot of the variables. (Thanks also to MJ Smith, your posts often challenge my thinking ...)
Last year I had a similar challenge to my thinking when I was purchasing printed editions of the Greek New Testament. I had to decide which one to get, and that led to learning about the new THGNT which was quite different than the NA28. In their goal of staying as close to the original manuscripts as possible, they decided to keep the original spelling.
It was a shock to me when I learned that the critical editions had harmonized the spelling of Greek words, when there were words that were spelled differently in the manuscripts. So this means that some words in the THGNT are spelled differently in different places in the NT.
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
There is the answer based on the Gramcord rules
My Library contains NA27 w/GRAMCORD. The Logos description includes this text:
NA27 w/GRAMCORD said:The Greek text is identical to the Nestle-Aland 27th Edition. The GRAMCORD morphological concordance of the Greek text is one of the most highly regarded works of its kind in the academic world. Designed to meet the needs of Bible scholars and utilizing the language of seminary environment, this work is desired by the practicing clergy as well as the academic. The Logos Bible Software implementation of the GRAMCORD data base offers the additional usefulness of a non-technical interface, thereby allowing an even broader audience access to the data.
If my understanding is correct, this would only be used when using this particular resource? When using the built-in Logos tools it will always use the SBL Greek and a Lexham morphology?
0 -
Here's an example of why the AI summary feature in Logos is such a powerful tool:
I'm trying to understand why Accordance treats λέγω as the lemma for ῥηθὲν, but Logos uses εἶπον as the lemma (they both acknowledge that λέγω is the root). I thought it might be because εἶπον is a defective Greek verb, but I wasn't sure. I thought the AI-powered search summary did a great job of displaying an answer for "Is εἶπον a defective greek verb?"
εἶπον is an aorist form of the Greek verb λέγω, meaning "to say" or "to speak"[1]. While the search results don't explicitly state whether it's defective, they show that εἶπον is part of an irregular verb paradigm, serving as the aorist tense for λέγω. This suggests it's not a typical defective verb, but rather part of a suppletive paradigm where different roots are used for different tenses of the same verb[1][2][3].
[1] Newman, Barclay M. A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament, Revised Edition, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft; United Bible Societies, 2010, p. 54.
[2] Friberg, Timothy, et al. Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, vol. 4, Baker Books, 2000, p. 132.
[3] The Lexham Analytical Lexicon of the Septuagint, Lexham Press, 20120 -
Ooh, so it’s like English go / went? Then it makes sense why they would be treated as different lexemes.
0 -
As a rule of thumb, those leaning towards historical linguistics or philology treat suppletive paradigms as multi-lemma-ed.
It is also important to distinguish between "is the aorist of" and "is used as the aorist of" ... which is often more descriptive than "irregular" which often means simply a remanent of a deprecated conjugation.
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:
It is also important to distinguish between "is the aorist of" and "is used as the aorist of"
👍
0 -
John said:
If my understanding is correct, this would only be used when using this particular resource? When using the built-in Logos tools it will always use the SBL Greek and a Lexham morphology?
True. But keep in mind, many of these type resources supply not only expanded morph searches, but specialized searches as well. See the resource info. Meaning, not just morph tags.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
John said:
When using the built-in Logos tools it will always use the SBL Greek and a Lexham morphology?
Some of the tools allow the user to specify the Greek, but you are correct on the defaults I believe.
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 -
Here is a layout that I have created for studying the Greek Septuagint that might be helpful:
0 -
Logos has some incredible tools for studying the Greek Septuagint as well!
0 -
MJ. Smith said: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, ...
Hi MJ,
Thanks for the explanation. While, like Mark said, your question is not easily answered, thankfully I don't find most of this irrelevant, as it has helped me understand the differences better. Further, it has also helped confirm that I realistically need to continue to count word instances in Accordance, as the Logos and Accordance numbers simply differ, regardless of why they differ. If words are counted as part of the lex of a word in one program, and then the "lex" itself in a different program, it seems like it would cause major issues. It ironically wouldn't cause issues with ῥηθὲν, since there has been so much attention to that word, but my concern would be all the words which are counted differently in the two programs without me knowing it.
Mark Allison said:Here's an example of why the AI summary feature in Logos is such a powerful tool:
Hi Mark, I'm still not a fan of AI. [:)] However, I am glad the bot and I agree that εἶπον is an irregular verb, but nonetheless still the aorist of λέγω.
Donovan R. Palmer said:And to make the storm perfect, when you shake the trust and reputation for quality of your most loyal users, you don't rebuild that overnight either.
Very true.
BKMitchell said:Logos has the Westminster morphology 4.18 (and of course other tagged Hebrew texts, too)...While in Accordance has
- HMT-W4 is tagged with the Groves-Wheeler Westminster Hebrew Morphology 4.20 version 2.2
- BHS-T is tagged with the Groves-Wheeler Westminster Hebrew Morphology 4.14 version 2.5
Hi MKMitchell, thank you for clarifying this. [:)]
0 -
John said:Mark Allison said:
you'll realize that Strong's is extremely limited
Yes I have heard that a few times before
Yes, I agree with you and Mark. However, given that he first published it in 1890, I am genuinely impressed at how much he DID do. I often think about how I would do my work without a computer, and it always amazes me how he did it.
Same here. [:)] I still vividly remember sitting on my floor with that intimidating book, trying to complete my homework.John said:My first experience with Strongs was with a printed edition.
0 -
The more I think about this, the stranger it seems.
So it really appears that if someone is doing a technical count of the instances of words, that person needs to either do ALL technical number work in Accordance with their lex, or ALL technical number work in Logos with their lemma. Is this truly correct?
If I do the lemma of λέγω in Logos I get 1329 hits, and if I do the lex in Accordance I get 2353 hits... so... and there doesn't appear to be a clear list of words which Accordance and Logos count differently.
However, I know that people doing scholarly work use BOTH programs. So is it truly possible that I am the ONLY person who is involved with counting the instances of words who is trying to use both programs? That seems really unlikely.
Does anyone see a practical solution? Or do I HAVE to always use Accordance, given that I have already spent literal years filing words according to the number of instances of an Accordance lex?
Thank you everyone for your patience with these questions.0 -
Kristin said:
So it really appears that if someone is doing a technical count of the instances of words, that person needs to either do ALL technical number work in Accordance with their lex, or ALL technical number work in Logos with their lemma. Is this truly correct?
No, the software used doesn't particularly matter. And outside Biblical studies, there are a number of tools used by academics for language studies. If exact, consistent counts are necessary, then three things must be true whether or not your work is computer assisted.
- You must choose a specific edition/manuscript of the text
- You must choose a specific manner for handling textual variants
- You must choose a single set of rules for determining morphology and resolving ambiguities.
It is likely for the BHS which did its own morphology coding (three different systems IIRC) and the Andersen-Forbes would produce one could get consistent results. One would have to be cautious re:copyright dates/editions to be sure you were comparing like to like. The most common solution is to gather all your raw data programmatically, so it is consistent - then spend your years of research work off this raw data rather than the text.
But much linguistic research is based on normalized data or frequency per 1000 words to avoid reading too much into the raw data. That is why many of the early text analysis tools for computers were visuals such as morph river, cluster graphs, and version rivers. I have been disappointed that Logos failed to continue to be a trail-blazer in the text visualization arena. Some of their employees had brilliant ideas they shared in their blogs. You might find it interesting to look at Text Analysis Software MAXQDA | Analyze Faster and Smarter to see what "standard" text analysis programs do as opposed to Bible specific tools.
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 -
Accordance lexeme used to be called lemma according to this thread
https://forums.accordancebible.com/topic/17279-lemma-lexeme/And not only that, but it was called lemma on one platform and lexeme on the other at the same time.
Nobody on this forum knows how Accordance searches, but the answer is probably in the Accordance documentation or help.
Dig deeper into the Accordance documentation until you find out exactly how it is getting its results.
If you can figure out exactly what Accordance is doing, it should be possible to duplicate the results on Logos.
Maybe Nathan can help?
0 -
John said:
Accordance lexeme used to be called lemma according to this thread
I was there when Accordance made the transition. We simply changed every mention of "lemma" to "lexeme" and didn't change anything about the way searches were handled. You can still see evidence of this in the Accordance documentation. There's still a help entry titled "Homographs in the Lemma List" where the dialog box is labeled the "Lexical Forms dialog box."
0 -
FWIW to anyone interested, I have been reading up on the THGNT to understand how it could or should fit into my studies. Here's an interesting blog I missed in 2023 which gives a general overview of the differences of the THGNT, NA28 and SBLGNT.
https://www.logos.com/grow/min-greek-new-testament/
For years I just happily used whatever the software programme dished out to me, but now that I have more options and accrued knowledge, I feel I must at least have some basic understanding of what is under the hood / bonnet.
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
No, the software used doesn't particularly matter. And outside Biblical studies, there are a number of tools used by academics for language studies. If exact, consistent counts are necessary, then three things must be true whether or not your work is computer assisted.
- You must choose a specific edition/manuscript of the text
- You must choose a specific manner for handling textual variants
- You must choose a single set of rules for determining morphology and resolving ambiguities.
Hi MJ,
I might be misunderstanding what you are saying, but your answer seems to be "no" but "yes." You begin by saying it "doesn't particularly matter" but then clarify that I need to "choose a single set of rules." The issue is that Accordance and Logos uses two different rules. So it appears that someone doing technical work cannot use both programs, based on your 3rd point. As mentioned above, Logos has 1329 hits for λέγω and Accordance has 2353 hits for λέγω.
John said:Accordance lexeme used to be called lemma according to this thread...
Hi John,
Thanks for the link, and that is what I have gathered too, that the two programs just use different terminology, but mean the same thing. Hence my concern that the Accordance "lemma" and Logos "lemma" are radically different.Mark Allison said:I was there when Accordance made the transition. We simply changed every mention of "lemma" to "lexeme" and didn't change anything about the way searches were handled.
Hi Mark,
Thanks for the screenshot. So am I correct that since I have been counting the lex (lemma....) in Accordance for years, there is no practical way to use BOTH programs for my work? (the number of hits of the lemma of λέγω, as one of many examples).
Donovan R. Palmer said:Here's an interesting blog I missed in 2023 which gives a general overview of the differences of the THGNT, NA28 and SBLGNT.
Hi Donovan,
Thanks for the link. I am glad you happened to mention this as I should clarify that I am using the NA28 in BOTH Accordance and Logos. So the discrepancy concerns the SAME text.
Donovan R. Palmer said:For years I just happily used whatever the software programme dished out to me, but now that I have more options and accrued knowledge, I feel I must at least have some basic understanding of what is under the hood / bonnet.
Ya, for sure I can say the same! This thread is the first time in my life that it had ever occurred to me that two different platforms would have two different numbers for how often a form of λέγω occurs in the NA28. I seriously thought that was undisputed.
0 -
Kristin said:
This thread is the first time in my life that it had ever occurred to me that two different platforms would have two different numbers for how often a form of λέγω occurs in the NA28. I seriously thought that was undisputed.
Logos is treating λέγω and εἶπον as different words, per BDAG. Accordance treats them as the same word. You could get the same results in Logos by searching for both words. (lemma.g:λέγω OR lemma.g:εἶπον finds 2353 hits in 2005 verses in Logos, same total as Accordance.) The rule you have to decide on is whether you want them to be combined, but you can accomplish that in either program. In one case, you're telling the software what you want; in the other case, continuing on with Accordance, you're letting the software tell you want you want.
0 -
Jonathan Huber said:
Logos is treating λέγω and εἶπον as different words, per BDAG. Accordance treats them as the same word.
Exactly. That is the problem I have been trying to express. One program calls it one word, and the other calls it two words. The only part of this I would like to clarify, is your "per BDAG" comment. (I mainly want to mention this for the sake of people who don't use Accordance.) Of course if I click on εἶπον in Accordance, BDAG brings me to λέγω. If, by contrast, I click on εἶπον in Logos, BDAG brings me to εἶπον, but I would argue εἶπον is only a subentry, as in Logos BDAG says, "2 aor. of λέγω."
Jonathan Huber said:You could get the same results in Logos by searching for both words.
I would argue this is not realistic. For the example of λέγω specifically, you are correct, as when I am working in Logos I can say to myself "Logos treats a 2nd aorist as if it were an infinitive when it comes to εἶπον. I better run that form of λέγω also." HOWEVER, that is a huge assumption that I know all the forums of all words which the two platforms handle differently. So it works with λέγω, but how would you handle words which you are not already aware the two programs file differently?
0 -
Donovan R. Palmer said:
, I feel I must at least have some basic understanding of what is under the hood / bonnet.
One of the things I positively hate about Bible software is the way it encourages users to blindly accept information without the slightest inkling of what they are looking at. From where I sit, it appears to create very gullible users. I much prefer biblical interpretation traditions that encourage believers to use what they already know rather than preset knowledge requirements.
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:
One of the things I positively hate about Bible software is the way it encourages users to blindly accept information without the slightest inkling of what they are looking at. From where I sit, it appears to create very gullible users.
I agree with this, which is why I didn't get any Bible software at all until after grad school. Given what you wrote though, it sounds like you likely don't like how Logos reps go around to first year Greek classes trying to get students to buy the program. Is this correct?
0 -
Well said. That is exactly why I am suspicious of AI. I worked in engineering and IT for over thirty years, and one thing I learned early was that you needed to have enough basic knowledge to be able to discern if the data you are looking is even in the ballpark. Too many people take as absolutely true everything they read or see on the internet or get as the output of programs. Almost nobody seems to be capable of asking the question, "but is that true?"
Robert
------------------------
Windows 11 -- Max
0 -
Mark Allison said:
I was there when Accordance made the transition. We simply changed every mention of "lemma" to "lexeme" and didn't change anything about the way searches were handled.
Hi Mark,
Do you know why Accordance changed "lemma" to "lexeme"?
0 -
Robert Taylor said:
Well said. That is exactly why I am suspicious of AI. I worked in engineering and IT for over thirty years, and one thing I learned early was that you needed to have enough basic knowledge to be able to discern if the data you are looking is even in the ballpark. Too many people take as absolutely true everything they read or see on the internet or get as the output of programs. Almost nobody seems to be capable of asking the question, "but is that true?"
This is one of the reasons I like what Logos is doing (currently in beta testing) in producing their smart search synopsis. They produce a short summary of the top results of the search and provide citations to those resources so we can read / check them for ourselves.
0 -
Robert Taylor said:
Well said. That is exactly why I am suspicious of AI... Too many people take as absolutely true everything they read or see on the internet or get as the output of programs. Almost nobody seems to be capable of asking the question, "but is that true?"[
I agree 100%! I truly despise AI. It might be useful (might be...) to tell you the weather, but it really has no business doing anything when it comes to theology or research. Logos advertising about v.11 adding AI is what finally provoked me to get Logos v.10, as I wanted to make sure I got the version that didn't include it.
0
