Are all words in NT texts that use Logos Greek Morphology parsed the same?

I need a clarification about the consistency of the morphology tagging system called Logos Greek Morphology. I am sure Bradley or Rick can answer this.

Are all words in Greek New Testament texts that are based on NA27 or UBS4 parsed the same? Or is the Logos Greek Morphology just a set of categories that provide room for individual texts to be parsed differently, if the author chooses?

The question arose, because I noticed that the parsing of some words has changed between NA26 and NA27.

Are all parsings the same in NA28 as NA27, where the same word is used in a context? What about the SBL Greek New Testament?

Are all morphological parsings the same as NA27 for opentext.org, Lexham Clausal Outlines, Lexham Syntactic Greek New Testament, Lexham Discourse Greek New Testament, Cascadia Syntax Graphs, etc.?

What about reverse interlinear Bibles?

Thanks for the clarification.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Rick Brannan (Logos)

Hi Harry.

In the NT, I don't believe we ever had a "Logos Morphology" applied to NA26; I think it was always Gramcord-based.

With the Logos edition of the NA27 and the Logos edition of the UBS4, parsing is essentially the same between them, using the Logos morphology. For word instances in the SBLGNT that are essentially the same (same word instance, word order differences compensated for) the analysis is the same as well.

At least, that was the starting point. Some tweaks and edits may have been made to, for example, the SBLGNT, but not retroverted back to the NA/UBS editions.

Reverse Interlinear (and interlinear) editions use the same morphology as well. So (again, for the vast, vast majority) instances between, say, SBLGNT and the reverse interlinear of the LEB NT should analyze the same word instances in the same way.

OpenText.org: It originally used a different morphology (in LDLS3.x), in Logos 4 (and Logos 5) we shifted to using our own morphology (and own Louw-Nida analysis). Everything else you mention is based on the same morphology, again, with possibly very slight differences based on edits since original release.

Are all words in Greek New Testament texts that are based on NA27 or UBS4 parsed the same? Or is the Logos Greek Morphology just a set of categories that provide room for individual texts to be parsed differently, if the author chooses?

The Logos Greek Morphology is both. It is used in non-NT texts (LXX, Josephus, Philo, Apostolic Fathers, Greek Apocryphal Gospels, Greek OT Pseudepigrapha) using the same categories. Note that only the NT text uses the conjunction, adverb (though neg. adverbs may be noted), and particle categories and subcategories.

Hope it helps.

Room4more

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/470604#Comment_470604

Hi Harry.

In the NT, I don't believe we ever had a "Logos Morphology" applied to NA26; I think it was always Gramcord-based.

With the Logos edition of the NA27 and the Logos edition of the UBS4, parsing is essentially the same between them, using the Logos morphology. For word instances in the SBLGNT that are essentially the same (same word instance, word order differences compensated for) the analysis is the same as well.

[...]

Hope it helps.

Thanks, Rick.

[as a side, I rec'vd those Greek_Apoc ...Thanks so much for your work!!]

R4m

Harry Hahne

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/470604#Comment_470604

I appreciate the information Rick.

I get the impression that the Logos Greek morphology is a pretty much of a formal parsing with not much functional parsing as AGNT. Am I correct?

Do you know of any philosophical differences between the Logos morphology and the Gramcord parsing?

I also cannot find any examples of alternate parsings in debatable instances (e.g. Matt 6:13). This can be useful to allow the user to search on both parsings where scholars disagree.

At least, that was the starting point. Some tweaks and edits may have been made to, for example, the SBLGNT, but not retroverted back to the NA/UBS editions.

I understand that SBLGNT would have different parsings in those few places where the wording is different.

But I was mainly wondering if the NA27/UBS4 would have the same parsing regardless of what other tags were added.For example, would opentext.org, Lexham Syntactic Greek New Testament, and Lexham Clausal Outlines have identical morphological tags with NA27/UBS4?

Was a record kept of how many and what words were changed in various tagged texts based on NA27/UBS4? Was there a philosophical guideline for why they would have been changed?

OpenText.org: It originally used a different morphology (in LDLS3.x), in Logos 4 (and Logos 5) we shifted to using our own morphology (and own Louw-Nida analysis).

This is valuable to know. I thought there were different parsings at times in Libronix, so this confirms it.

I don't believe we ever had a "Logos Morphology" applied to NA26; I think it was always Gramcord-based.

Thanks for pointing that out. I did not even think of that. I was recently comparing parsing of NA26, NA27 and NA28. I believe the NA26 in Logos was around before there was a "Logos Greek Morphology". I used to use the Gramcord text for so many years so it is a very familiar tagged text.

Thanks for the feedback.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/470838#Comment_470838

But I was mainly wondering if the NA27/UBS4 would have the same parsing regardless of what other tags were added.For example, would opentext.org, Lexham Syntactic Greek New Testament, and Lexham Clausal Outlines have identical morphological tags with NA27/UBS4?

With different morphological schemes the tags could be very different e.g GRAMCORD vs Logos Morphology vs Opentext in L3. GRAMCORd was similar but used different codes to Logos. Conjunctions, Prep & Adj had different attributes. Verbs and articles were similar but one might assign neuter vs masculine. GRAMCORD has Interjection for some Verbs. If I remember correctly, Middle/Passive verbs might attract two tags whilst Logos has one tag for "Middle or Passive".

OpenText (L3) was classed as using Logos Morphology but that was more for convenience as it used OpenText's system. In particular Particles, Conjunctions and Adverbs were messed around because Logos' Conjunctions were Particles and some of Logos' Particles were Adverbs.

Rick Brannan (Logos)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/470838#Comment_470838

I get the impression that the Logos Greek morphology is a pretty much of a formal parsing with not much functional parsing as AGNT. Am I correct?

Pretty much, yes. Though conjunctions, particles, and adverbs have some types and subtypes that are more context-based/subjective than strictly formal; at least in the NT.

Do you know of any philosophical differences between the Logos morphology and the Gramcord parsing?

Well, I can't speak for GRAMCORD. Friberg is probably the most different. Swanson's parsing introduces the notion of finite/non-finite for verbs, though that is easily deducible by verbal mood. Note that in exegetical guide, the morphology listings also offer a comparison of available morphologies with differences in parsing listed — for words that can be tracked across morphologies.

But I was mainly wondering if the NA27/UBS4 would have the same parsing regardless of what other tags were added.For example, would opentext.org, Lexham Syntactic Greek New Testament, and Lexham Clausal Outlines have identical morphological tags with NA27/UBS4?

I don't know what you mean by "regardless of what other tags were added." We analyzed the text of the NA27/UBS4 edition(s); it is this analysis that is provided with the different versions (OpenText.org, Lexham Clausal Outlines, Lexham Syntactic Greek NT, etc.) of the text. The morphology does not change between them. We have one central source that is drawn from and integrated in these versions when they are created/compiled.

Was a record kept of how many and what words were changed in various tagged texts based on NA27/UBS4? Was there a philosophical guideline for why they would have been changed?

I also don't understand what this is asking. The Logos Greek Morphology, applied to the NA27/UBS4 text is simply that. I don't understand what is changing if the NA27/UBS4 is the same text. The analysis is of the NA27/UBS4, so where that text is used, the analysis should be consistent.

I think I'm probably missing something very simple in your question, though. If you can help me see what I'm missing, I'll try to answer again.

Harry Hahne

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/470943#Comment_470943

Here is an interesting anomaly: If I search the NA27 with Logos Morphology for adjectives that could be parsed as masculine or neuter, I get 0 results. But if I search the NASB95 reverse interlinear, I get 120. The ESV and NIV report 117.

It appears that for the NA27 a decision was made to resolve parsing ambiguities based on context so there is only one parsing. But the reverse interlinears are more pure morphology, so they retain the ambiguity based on form. Am I reading this correctly? I am surprised, because I assume that the same parsing base was used for the reverse interlinears as for the Greek New Testament with Logos morphology.