Bug: Root Search ESV vs LGNTI

Root Search <Root = lbs/el/νους> for Repent from Matt 3:2 yields different results for ESV (163/155) and LGNTI:SBL (151/143)

ESV has 2 roots in those passages whilst LGNTI has one root.

LLS:LGNTISBL
2012-10-25T22:48:30Z
LGNTISBL.logos4

LLS:1.0.710
2012-10-12T16:52:28Z
ESV.logos4
RVI:ESVNT
2012-10-11T20:40:31Z
ESVNT.lbsrvi
RVI:ESVOT
2012-10-12T01:08:38Z
ESVOT.lbsrvi

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Bradley Grainger (Logos)

Thanks for reporting this; I'll let Rick know.

Rick Brannan (Logos)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/411819#Comment_411819

Yes, I'm aware of this and it is on my hitlist.

Rick Brannan (Logos)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/411846#Comment_411846

I think I have this resolved; am working on getting resources rebuilt.

FWIW, either with launch or sometime shortly thereafter, the following Greek NTs will have roots:

SBLGNT
LGNTISBL
NA28
LogosNA27
LogosUBS4
LogosWH
SCRMORPH (Scrivener)
LGNTI
LogosNA27Int
LogosUBS4Int

As well as the reverse interlinears, of course, which do not need to be rebuilt as they handle the multiple root issue correctly.

Note, however, that hit counts will not always match between an RI and a Greek NT. For instance, the ESV uses a version of the Greek NT representative of the ESV; it is different than both SBLGNT and NA27/UBS4. So while this case did expose an error (thanks for making me aware of it), there will be cases where a slight discrepancy in counts between ESV and other Greek NTs is actually correct.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/411927#Comment_411927

As well as the reverse interlinears, of course, which do not need to be rebuilt as they handle the multiple root issue correctly.

Can you explain, please. I'm not sure I would have handled the multiple roots at Mk 12.34

Rick Brannan (Logos)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/411966#Comment_411966

Hi Dave

As well as the reverse interlinears, of course, which do not need to be rebuilt as they handle the multiple root issue correctly.

Can you explain, please. I'm not sure I would have handled the multiple roots at Mk 12.34

In Mk 12.34, the word νουνεχως (wisely, thoughfully) is a compound of νους (mind) and εχω (to have), so both roots are listed. When a word is a compound, the roots involved will be listed.

This happens properly in the data in the reverse interlinears. The data I generated for the Greek NT editions, however, only pulled one root even if there were multiple. Now these too will, when they are released, properly reflect compounds.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/411982#Comment_411982

In Mk 12.34, the word νουνεχως (wisely, thoughfully) is a compound of νους (mind) and εχω (to have), so both roots are listed. When a word is a compound, the roots involved will be listed.

Then is not "repent" at Matt 3.2 also a compound with meta?

Rick Brannan (Logos)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/412035#Comment_412035

In Mk 12.34, the word νουνεχως (wisely, thoughfully) is a compound of νους (mind) and εχω (to have), so both roots are listed. When a word is a compound, the roots involved will be listed.

Then is not "repent" at Matt 3.2 also a compound with meta?

For the purposes of this root analysis, we have not analyzed prefixes, suffixes, and prefixed prepositions. If we are able to do a full-on morphemic analysis at some point, then those items will be included.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/412119#Comment_412119

For the purposes of this root analysis, we have not analyzed prefixes, suffixes, and prefixed prepositions. If we are able to do a full-on morphemic analysis at some point, then those items will be included.

Thanks for the explanation, Rick (I know you mentioned it previously, so it might stay with me now).

Rick Brannan (Logos)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/412173#Comment_412173

For the purposes of this root analysis, we have not analyzed prefixes, suffixes, and prefixed prepositions. If we are able to do a full-on morphemic analysis at some point, then those items will be included.

Thanks for the explanation, Rick (I know you mentioned it previously, so it might stay with me now).

No worries, Dave. I know the question will come up once the root feature is public, so it's good to go over it now. Thanks for digging around and asking questions!