a question from an Accordance User

1252628303139

Comments

  • Member, MVP Posts: 2,674

    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... 

  • Member Posts: 973 ✭✭✭

    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.

  • Member Posts: 973 ✭✭✭

    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.

  • Member Posts: 973 ✭✭✭

    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.

  • Member Posts: 973 ✭✭✭

    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.

  • Member Posts: 973 ✭✭✭

    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.

  • Member Posts: 973 ✭✭✭

    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.

  • Member Posts: 1,768 ✭✭✭

    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:

    Screenshot 20240815 155114 Samsung Internet

    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? 
  • Member Posts: 973 ✭✭✭

    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.

  • Member Posts: 973 ✭✭✭

    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.

  • Member Posts: 973 ✭✭✭

    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.

  • Member Posts: 693 ✭✭

    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. 

  • MVP Posts: 53,706

    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."

  • Member, MVP Posts: 2,674

    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!

  • Member Posts: 354 ✭✭

    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. 
    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.

    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.


  • Member Posts: 354 ✭✭

    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. [:)]

  • Member Posts: 354 ✭✭

    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?

  • Member Posts: 354 ✭✭

    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! [:)]

    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. 

  • Member, MVP Posts: 2,674

    Kristin said:

    Thanks for saying this! Smile

    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. [:)]

  • Member Posts: 702 ✭✭✭

    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.

  • Member Posts: 354 ✭✭

    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.

    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.

    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.

  • Member Posts: 354 ✭✭

    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.

    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. Smile

    Thank you! I am glad you found it interesting! [:)]

    Yes. Click on the "Show Differences" button.

    Hi Mark,

    Thank you for the text compare screenshot! That was helpful. [:)]

  • Member Posts: 13,764 ✭✭✭

    Kristin said:

    Thank you for the text compare screenshot!

    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).

    "If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.

  • Member Posts: 354 ✭✭

    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.

  • MVP Posts: 53,706

    Kristin said:

    I was surprised to see "Sense."

    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:

    [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."

  • Member Posts: 354 ✭✭

    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.

  • MVP Posts: 53,706

    Kristin said:

    hence my "presupposition" comment.

    I consider it simply another form of a gloss.

    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."

  • Member Posts: 354 ✭✭

    MJ. Smith said:

    I consider it simply another form of a gloss.

    Well, we can agree it is a gloss. [:)] As mentioned, it had just been unexpected, but that is fine.

  • Member Posts: 354 ✭✭

    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. :) 

  • MVP Posts: 53,706

    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."

Welcome!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Welcome!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.