More on LN searches

Clint Cozier

Another question regarding searching for LN semantic domain tags: I'd like to construct searches that work across both the LXX and the NT. After doing a few of these (<LouwNida ~ Louw Nida 32.24-41> WITHIN 10 words <LouwNida ~ Louw Nida 32.42-61>), I noted that all the hits were NT. It then occurred to me that my LXX (Rhalfs w/ Logos Tagging) didn't have LN tags....which I think is correct. I then rolled over and tried the Lexham Greek-English Interlinear LXX, but again I don't see LN tags. Is there an LXX database with LN tagging and how can I search across both the LXX and GNT?

Thanks.

Clint Cozier

....sorry....I have a collection that I normally search through to do the LXX / GNT work. Hence my desire for a Greek text of the LXX w/ LN tags. I'm hoping I've just overlooked something obvious.

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :)

Clint Cozier said:

Is there an LXX database with LN tagging and how can I search across both the LXX and GNT?

Apologies: not know of LXX with LN tagging.

Can search for greek or lemma (in a collection with LXX and GNT):

Keep Smiling [:)]

Mark Barnes

No-one has ever tagged an LXX with Louw-Nida semantic domains. I'm not sure they ever would, because Louw-Nida only covers the NT so there any many words that are used in the LXX which would not be in Louw-Nida.

Clint Cozier

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/263050#Comment_263050

Wow....some real holes in the LXX databases. Because of the way BibleWorks handles LN domains (it simply manipulates lemmas in particular domains, it doesn't depend on tagging), I've grown accustomed to searching across the LXX as a cross check on my NT work. Likewise, no LXX syntactically tagged text. That puts a real crimp into my "normal" workflow. 

Thanks for the help.

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/263052#Comment_263052

Clint Cozier said:

(it simply manipulates lemmas in particular domains, it doesn't depend on tagging

Sorry, a question for the curious: how does Bibleworks know which domain should display for each lemma, when many lemmas can be in any one of several domains?

Clint Cozier

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/263053#Comment_263053

It simply treats LN domains as lists of lemmas....which is the work around in Logos as well for the LXX. In BW's graphic search engine, you can construct a search using LN semantic domains on any database that has morphological tagging that includes lemmas. Use the LN domains to construct word lists, run the query and then do some manual sorting out of the hit list to isolate the particular domain you want. Its not nearly as precise as working the the databases in Logos and does require some hands on sifting through hits, but it is usable on a wide collection of databases (church fathers, Philo, LXX). I'm a little jumpy about blindly trusting LN tags since often the art of interpretation is making decisions about semantic domains.

Both approaches have their advantages.

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/263062#Comment_263062

OK, I understand. I prefer Logos' solution though! I guess the quickest way to replicate this would be to have volume 1 of Louw-Nida open, and then copy and paste the lemmas into a morph search, prefacing each one with lemma: and separating them with a comma (so lemma:ἐκδικέω, lemma:ἐκδίκησις, lemma:δίκη for example).

If you want a very wide domain range, it would be possible to generate lemma lists for a particular domain, which you could then use to search untagged texts, but it would take a bit of work, and you'd need a spreadsheet like Excel for an intermediary step.