nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Morphology help / challenge

George Somsel

I'm still working on Gen 4.8 and the phrase וַיָּ֥קָם קַ֛יִן אֶל־הֶ֥בֶל. It's not as though I don't understand what it means, but I am now attempting to use this passage to test L4 morphology searches. If I enter

[קום=v??????+S???E?J?C?V?] before 5 words [‪אֶל‬{P (WTS)}=Pp+S???E?]

in L3 I get 38 verses. In L4 I get nothing. I have tried

lemma:קוּם@v BEFORE 5 words lemma: אֶל@p

which seems like a logical search string. Perhaps someone else can succeed in this.

Bring back the check-boxes !

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Jon

Hi George,

I constructed your search by typing the following:

h:qum click lemma for stand, get up @V BEFORE 5 words h:al click lemma for to @P

It ends up looking like this:

You can refine the morphology by clicking on the popup options after @, which isn't so different for ticking the boxes...

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/50660#Comment_50660

Hi George,

I constructed your search by typing the following:

h:qum click lemma for stand, get up @V BEFORE 5 words h:al click lemma for to @P

I have the same search string, but it doesn't work for me. Perhaps it doesn't like my computer. The only difference is that I refuse to type in the Hebrew (or Greek) phonetically -- I'll stick to L3 first. Bring back the check boxes. I hate this.

davidphillips

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/50671#Comment_50671

George,

This time I can agree. I've found problems with Hebrew searching in the past, particularly where the lemma involves numerals or letters that precede or follow the actual lemma (as in this case). I get 0 results for this as well. However, to be fair, I don't think the issue has anything to do with checkboxes as checkboxes. The click-selector is functional. It's something else that's a problem that is causing your searches to routinely fail (and apparently mine to sometimes fail). I was able to get the search to work using the following:

But, the search fails if I change the resource to BHS 4.2:

So there appears to be two issues here. One with the lemma selector, the other with BHS 4.2

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/50677#Comment_50677

George,

This time I can agree. I've found problems with Hebrew searching in the past, particularly where the lemma involves numerals or letters that precede or follow the actual lemma (as in this case). I get 0 results for this as well. However, to be fair, I don't think the issue has anything to do with checkboxes as checkboxes. The click-selector is functional. It's something else that's a problem that is causing your searches to routinely fail (and apparently mine to sometimes fail). I was able to get the search to work using the following:

But, the search fails if I change the resource to BHS 4.2:

So there appears to be two issues here. One with the lemma selector, the other with BHS 4.2

This method is subject to too many vagaries. With a check-box it's either checked or it's not checked. I don't think it has anything to do with 4.2 since that is what I routinely use -- also in L3. I tried changing to the "generic" BHS with Westminster morph without success in L4. Check boxes work 1st time every time.

BTW: I tightened this up to within 2 words since I was getting too many hits with a second verb. Even with 2 words I get cases of an impv of קום followed by a 2nd impv when אֶל should go with קום rather than the 2nd impv.

Russ Quinn

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/50677#Comment_50677

So there appears to be two issues here. One with the lemma selector, the other with BHS 4.2

David,

Not sure why but I get the following results:

spitzerpl

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/50684#Comment_50684

So there appears to be two issues here. One with the lemma selector, the other with BHS 4.2

Without reading things too carefully, in one search string (yours) the @v and @p is lowercase. in the successful search presented @V and @P are upper case. Is this causing your problem?

EDIT: Keep in mind some resource morphologies use upper case, some use lower case, and some use a combination of both. So if you change the resource you are searching, you also break your morphology search string. At least this is what I have found to be true.

davidphillips

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/50741#Comment_50741

Philip,

In this instance it doesn't seem to be an issue of lower case vs. upper case.

spitzerpl

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/50747#Comment_50747

Philip,

In this instance it doesn't seem to be an issue of lower case vs. upper case.

That will teach me to stick my nose in waters I'm not willing to test :-)

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/50741#Comment_50741

So there appears to be two issues here. One with the lemma selector, the other with BHS 4.2

Without reading things too carefully, in one search string (yours) the @v and @p is lowercase. in the successful search presented @V and @P are upper case. Is this causing your problem?

EDIT: Keep in mind some resource morphologies use upper case, some use lower case, and some use a combination of both. So if you change the resource you are searching, you also break your morphology search string. At least this is what I have found to be true.

No. Both upper and lower case fail equally. Bring back the check-boxes.

davidphillips

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/50755#Comment_50755

That will teach me to stick my nose in waters I'm not willing to test :-)

Not at all! It's always good to give it a go. After all, you never nose...

No. Both upper and lower case fail equally. Bring back the check-boxes.

Ok, I could be off base here, but I'm pretty sure the check boxes are just a graphical UI. The current click boxes are just a graphical UI. The problem isn't that we're clicking instead of checking, the problem is that there's a problem in the actual underlying system. They could change the UI to checkboxes and the same problem would exist. The reason L3 works isn't because you're checking boxes, it's because the underlying system is more stable at the moment. Or am I misunderstanding your complaint?

spitzerpl

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/50767#Comment_50767

No. Both upper and lower case fail equally. Bring back the check-boxes.

I know this breaks your heart, and perhaps goes against your faith, but does it work if you type the Greek and Hebrew phonetically and select from the list?

John Fidel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/50767#Comment_50767

George,

As an alternative to the checkboxes, what if our selections remained highlighted.. same thing, but works better in the newer dialog box.

Brian Davidson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/50767#Comment_50767

I would like to see something like the check boxes brought back as well.

davidphillips

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/50696#Comment_50696

Not sure why but I get the following results:

Russ,

That's quite odd. Hopefully this will be fixed in the near future.

Jeremy

Bring back the check-boxes!

I totally agree! I shouldn't have to know computer language in order to use the morphological search. In this regard, Logos 4 is not simpler than Logos 3.

davidphillips

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/50790#Comment_50790

I totally agree! I shouldn't have to know computer language in order to use the morphological search. In this regard, Logos 4 is not simpler than Logos 3.

Just to be sure, you guys know that if you type @ it brings up a morph selection screen, right, and that you can click on your choices with the mouse? This can be done with or without specifying a lemma. The "computer language" appeared in L3 as well in the morph search when you clicked "add to search"

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/50784#Comment_50784

No. Both upper and lower case fail equally. Bring back the check-boxes.

I know this breaks your heart, and perhaps goes against your faith, but does it work if you type the Greek and Hebrew phonetically and select from the list?

I don't know. I don't care. I won't try it. If it won't work when I type in Greek or Hebrew then it won't work and I''ll use L3.

spitzerpl

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/50802#Comment_50802

I don't know. I don't care. I won't try it. If it won't work when I type in Greek or Hebrew then it won't work and I''ll use L3.

I had a feeling you'd say something like this :-)

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/50780#Comment_50780

Ok, I could be off base here, but I'm pretty sure the check boxes are just a graphical UI. The current click boxes are just a graphical UI. The problem isn't that we're clicking instead of checking, the problem is that there's a problem in the actual underlying system. They could change the UI to checkboxes and the same problem would exist. The reason L3 works isn't because you're checking boxes, it's because the underlying system is more stable at the moment. Or am I misunderstanding your complaint?

I would agree with that in principle. The problem is that the underlying code is either faulty or it is too demanding on typing in everything in a precise form (Upper case vs. lower case for example with respect to proximity operators). On the other hand, a check-box is a check-box is a check-box. Bring back the check-boxes and the underlying code.

spitzerpl

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/50806#Comment_50806

On the other hand, a check-box is a check-box is a check-box.

Clicking on a part of speech and highlighting it is clicking on a part of speech and highlighting it is clicking on a part of speech and highlighting it. I prefer the look of the highlighting to the look of the checkbox, personally.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/50785#Comment_50785

George,

As an alternative to the checkboxes, what if our selections remained highlighted.. same thing, but works better in the newer dialog box.

I can't respond to that since I apparently don't understand your intent. I fail to see how highlighting would affect anything. Perhaps if morph searching is going to be so fussy they should bring back the selector boxes from L2.1.

spitzerpl

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/50810#Comment_50810

Maybe we are not seeing the same thing. I cannot understand how this is substantially different from the checkboxes. Rather then a box in front of the part of speech, it simply highlights the text. Where is the difference that makes this a deal breaker? I can understand to a degree the issue with typing in the original, but I don't see any weakness in the selection of morphology.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/50825#Comment_50825

Maybe we are not seeing the same thing. I cannot understand how this is substantially different from the checkboxes. Rather then a box in front of the part of speech, it simply highlights the text. Where is the difference that makes this a deal breaker? I can understand to a degree the issue with typing in the original, but I don't see any weakness in the selection of morphology.

It's a deal-breaker because it simply doesn't work a significant portion of the time.

spitzerpl

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/50830#Comment_50830

It's a deal-breaker because it simply doesn't work a significant portion of the time.

It's always worked for me, but granted you would have put it through far more of a testing then I have. Most likely the reason it isn't working for you has to do with how the Greek/Hebrew is input rather then how the morphology is selected.

Jon

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/50833#Comment_50833

Philip, I think that you're spot on - and some of the same issues apply to both Logos 3 and 4. When you enter the hebrew lemma you have to use the mouse and click one of the drop down lemmas, even when typing it in with the hebrew keyboard. This may seem like a bug, but it's actually just the same in L3 - if you don't use the lemma box and type the lemma straight into the search field with the hebrew keyboard it doesn't work. In L4 you end up with funny looking lemmas with a number (since the morphological text breaks down all the different similar lexemes for each root and numbers them), the same thing must have been happening in L3, you just couldn't see it...

I should confess I'm coming at this from a fairly unusual, but I hope helpful perspective - I never used morphological search on hebrew in L3; so I've been playing around with morph search in L4 over the last week, and went back and ran some in L3 to try and work out what all the fuss is about [:)] I think both are quite easy to use, the L3 search box is very 'busy' but self-explanatory; the L4 morph search has all the same options available, they're just presented much more neatly. You need to know to type g/h: and to use the @ key for morphology. The right click menus in L4 for morph searching are very easy to use, and can help you work out what's happening if you can't get a search to work. The point I'm making is that from the point of view of someone who is new to both; L4 is no harder to use than L3 so I think you just need to give it a chance and take the time to figure out how it works...

Finally, George, if you'll forgive the presumptiousness of youth [:D] I simply can't understand your issue with entering text phonetically/transliterated vs hebrew keyboard. If you were writing a document and needed to accent and vowel point then I understand, you need the hebrew keyboard. But for searching? You don't need to accent or vowel point, after entering the consonants you still have to choose from the list of lemmas (same as L3); and as far as I can tell (with the exception of a bug of aleph and ayin - see beta forum), you end up hitting the same keys on the keyboard, the only difference is typing h: instead of a keyboard shortcut to change to hebrew keyboard - which is actually faster. What's more you don't need to keep on changing between keyboards to enter the morphology and search syntax! I would highly recommend not seeing this as a 'simplification for the lowly plebs' but a much quicker way of achieving the same result; I think you'll have a lot more success and less frustration using the morph search in L4 if you work with it not against it...

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/51196#Comment_51196

Finally, George, if you'll forgive the presumptiousness of youth I simply can't understand your issue with entering text phonetically/transliterated vs hebrew keyboard. If you were writing a document and needed to accent and vowel point then I understand, you need the hebrew keyboard. But for searching? You don't need to accent or vowel point, after entering the consonants you still have to choose from the list of lemmas (same as L3); and as far as I can tell (with the exception of a bug of aleph and ayin - see beta forum), you end up hitting the same keys on the keyboard, the only difference is typing h: instead of a keyboard shortcut to change to hebrew keyboard - which is actually faster. What's more you don't need to keep on changing between keyboards to enter the morphology and search syntax! I would highly recommend not seeing this as a 'simplification for the lowly plebs' but a much quicker way of achieving the same result; I think you'll have a lot more success and less frustration using the morph search in L4 if you work with it not against it...

Are you under 39?

I absolutely dislike ("hate" would actually be a better term) transliterated Greek or Hebrew. On the email lists I only use the transliteration to ensure that I'm looking at the same passage as whoever wrote the origianal post (yes, they do sometimes enter the wrong citation). Transliterated text is the one thing that really bugs me about the Anchor Bible series. Actually, it does not take long to change keyboards. I have mine set up so that <alt-shft-#> changes to the appropriate keyboard so it's really only one keystroke involving several keys. I'm simply not going to get involved with transliteration. There are numerous differing transliteration schemes. The only one I use is what is used on the email lists for the benefit of those who may not be using unicode. I can continue to use L3 and will continue to do so until the morph search is fixed.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/51196#Comment_51196

I think you'll have a lot more success and less frustration using the morph search in L4 if you work with it not against it...

Jon,

It simply does not work reliably. I have spent nearly 1 hour getting this search to work and it does not work with the suggested lemma for "to". It does not work even from the Context menu in BHS 4.2. Why does BHS 4.0 have a different form of the lemma?

The Morph Search does not work reliably, nor is it straightforward.

spitzerpl

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/51204#Comment_51204

I absolutely dislike ("hate" would actually be a better term) transliterated Greek or Hebrew...I can continue to use L3 and will continue to do so until the morph search is fixed.

We all have our lines in the sand. :-)

spitzerpl

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/51210#Comment_51210

It simply does not work reliably. I have spent nearly 1 hour getting this search to work and it does not work with the suggested lemma for "to". It does not work even from the Context menu in BHS 4.2. Why does BHS 4.0 have a different form of the lemma?

The Morph Search does not work reliably, nor is it straightforward.

Welcome to the 1,000 post club. It sounds like you have used it the way its intended and still get inconsistencies. If that is the case then it definitely needs a second look. I confess I have not messed with the Hebrew search much.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/51212#Comment_51212

It sounds like you have used it the way its intended and still get inconsistencies. If that is the case then it definitely needs a second look.

I get the same result on my desktop, which is my Master computer, just to check that my results were not affected by how i update the laptop. It only works with lemma:קום@v BEFORE 5 words lemma:אֶל@P, only gets results in BHS Morph Tagged (2) & 4.0 (106) and the Preposition is basically unsearchable in BHS 4.2.

[I was hoping to get the 1k before I went away for a few days].

spitzerpl

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/51214#Comment_51214

[I was hoping to get the 1k before I went away for a few days].

Pound for pound, quality to quality, you have me beat by miles :-) I always remember your posts being informative and fair. Thanks for all your contributions!

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/51212#Comment_51212

It simply does not work reliably. I have spent nearly 1 hour getting this search to work and it does not work with the suggested lemma for "to". It does not work even from the Context menu in BHS 4.2. Why does BHS 4.0 have a different form of the lemma?

The Morph Search does not work reliably, nor is it straightforward.

Welcome to the 1,000 post club. It sounds like you have used it the way its intended and still get inconsistencies. If that is the case then it definitely needs a second look. I confess I have not messed with the Hebrew search much.

I really don't think it's "as intended" that you can enter transliteration. It is an accomodation to those who have difficulty navigating a Greek or Hebrew keyboard. Since that isn't my problem, I don't see that there is any reason for me to use it. I think it is intended that either method works which is proven by the fact that when there are homonyms it gives a list so that you can click on the one which is properly differentiated -- even for those who enter in the native script. In short, it isn't because I don't follow a so-called "intended" method.

Keith Larson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/51196#Comment_51196

Finally, George, if you'll forgive the presumptiousness of youth I simply can't understand your issue with entering text phonetically/transliterated vs hebrew keyboard. If you were writing a document and needed to accent and vowel point then I understand, you need the hebrew keyboard...

There is a little more too this than just preference. I am not speaking for George, but my self only. I find it very hard to both type and read transliterated text. I am not quite sure why this is but my best guess is that it has something to do with the way I process printed text into words. Educators have known for years that different people uses different meathods for reading, so people read phonetically and others by looking at the whole word. I have no idea how my brain is processing text but all I know is that when I come across a greek word written in greek I can read it quickly and smoothly, if I see it transliterated I stumble across it like a first grader. So the assumption that transliteration is "easier" is not true across the board. BTW I am 48. Maybe this has something to do with it. [:)]

Jon

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/51210#Comment_51210

I share your strong dislike for transliteration when reading - it's
just so much harder to read than the greek or hebrew script; but for entering search
queries I find it ok because I'm not actually looking at the transliterated characters, I'm looking at the list of Hebrew lemmas that comes up... the actual keys pressed are the same as if you were
typing with the Hebrew keyboard (bug with aleph and ayin aside); close your eyes while you enter the query and you wouldn't know the difference [:)]

As much as I dislike reading transliterated text, I find this system so much easier for queries because you don't have to keep changing keyboards. Anyway, each to their own, just give it a go before you right it off just because its advertised as 'transliterated'...

It simply does not work reliably. I have spent nearly 1 hour getting this search to work and it does not work with the suggested lemma for "to". It does not work even from the Context menu in BHS 4.2. Why does BHS 4.0 have a different form of the lemma?

It's sounding an awful lot like your index is broke (&/or BHS 4.2). I can't reproduce your problem - here's what I see and the result as
I enter this query - using the Hebrew keyboard to keep everyone happy -
it works every time (except the time when I had Aramaic selected and
got really frustrated [:)])

קוּם@V BEFORE 5 words אל@P

spitzerpl

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/51231#Comment_51231

I share your strong dislike for transliteration when reading - it's
just so much harder to read than the greek or hebrew script; but for entering search
queries I find it ok because I'm not actually looking at the transliterated characters, I'm looking at the list of Hebrew lemmas that comes up... the actual keys pressed are the same as if you were
typing with the Hebrew keyboard (bug with aleph and ayin aside); close your eyes while you enter the query and you wouldn't know the difference

My thoughts exactly. I'm glad you saved me the time of typing them :-)

Jon

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/51233#Comment_51233

I'm glad you saved me the time of typing them :-)

Wouldn't want to miss out on a post though [H]

By the way, since people who know what they're talking about are reading this thread; any particular reason to choose WHM4.2 for these searches, as opposed to Anderson-Forbes or WIVU? Anywhere I could go read to find out the differences?

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/51231#Comment_51231

It's sounding an awful lot like your index is broke (&/or BHS 4.2). I can't reproduce your problem - here's what I see and the result as
I enter this query -

A few are having this problem, and I don't think it is the Index. The only way I get this to work in BHS 4.2 is to use a Bible Search, but it is very messy

(<lemma = lls/he/קום> ANDEQUALS <lls-morph+he ~ v??????+S???E?I??V?>) BEFORE 5 words <Lemma = lls/he/אֶל/0.P>