List of LXX Words Sharing Common Elements: a Plea for 2.0

A day or so after I purchased the eagerly anticipated "List of LXX Words Sharing Common Elements," and had more time to example carefully the digital version of this great resource (I bought the paper version decades ago), I found that the Logos version contained several deficiencies, mainly the lack of lexicon links for numerous verbs ending in -ein (in the sub-columns).

I sent an email to Logos HQ inquiring about this matter, and bizarre as this may sound, the Logos respondent asked me to post my question on the Forum. This is a direct quote:

"Have you mentioned this in our forums? If you will post about it there, I’ll be glad to have our development team look into it. It may just be a bug in the resource and that should be possible to resolve."

I'm sure this is not a bug, but it would be much appreciated if Logos re-issued this scholarly resource so that 1) all words contain links to available Greek (esp. LEH) lexicons, and 2) the various other links are not just to the four general categories (such as to the Pentateuch) but to specific LXX locations? This latter request would probably be asking too much, considering the low price of the product. But as I said, it would be a great benefit to Logos' loyal customers. Just a thought.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Beloved Amodeo

[Y] Benefit!

NB.Mick

but it would be much appreciated if Logos re-issued this scholarly resource so that 1) all words contain links to available Greek (esp. LEH) lexicons, and 2) the various other links are not just to the four general categories (such as to the Pentateuch) but to specific LXX locations?

tfjern,

I'm not sure about your request - Logos on purpose doesn't link words to specific lexicons: they have no control over which lexicons you own and your preferences. Instead, they let you prioritize those as you wish.

Double-click on one of the greek words will trigger a lookup in the various lexicons in order of your prioritization. Thus it will give hits from e.g. Louw-Nida if this is prioritized above LEH and contains the word, otherwise it will continue looking. If you prefer LEH to come up everytime you can put it first in your priority list. You may even use "advanced prioritization" to lookup LEH first for all double-clicks from this resource only. Check out the wiki for detailed descriptions about how to set this up.

Nevertheless, if none of your lexicons contain a certain word, the lookup will remain empty.

Does this help? If not, could you give us a screenshot explaining what you see and tell us what you want to accomplish instead?

Mick

tfjern

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/472154#Comment_472154

I have already prioritized the LEH (the LXX Lexicon).

The problem is that many of the verbs in the "List of LXX Words..." end in -ein (infinitive form) -- to repeat this for the umpteenth time -- and do not link to the Greek lexicons, which they should if this resource is to be user-friendly.

The headwords seem to link OK (though I haven't checked them all), but not the remainder of the words in the respective sub-columns. Check it out and you will quickly see what the problem is.

Logos would be performing a very beneficial service for its beleaguered but loyal customers if ALL the words in the "List of LXX Words..." were linkable to available Greek lexicons (esp. LEH / LSJ).

Homer Russell

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/472166#Comment_472166

2 things,

1.) what I do is to link the different lexicons (e or f) to the greek and to the Hebrew resources; have them all open (all the linked greek lexicons at the same time) because they will have different definitions, and the prioritized one is the one that will immediately appear. [a more time consuming way to get the same effect is to click on the parallel resources button]

2.) the LXX has a lot of words that are not found in the NT, others are similar in spelling, but identical in meaning, yet because that variation is not found in the NT, the NT lexicon won't include it. In other words, only the LXX lexicons (a lot less of them) would contain everything pertinent to the LXX, even though its still Greek. [That's where Perseus really helps].

Beloved Amodeo

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/472154#Comment_472154

Good morning NB,

The issue here from my point of view is that this particular resource does not point you to any specific information with regards to the resource it is supposed to extract its main information from namely the Septuagint. What I would like to see happen is that we could prioritize Lust's to this resource so that we could gain insight into the text of the Septuagint.

What happens instead is that no matter how you prioritize your Greek lexicons Lust's is ignored. Unfortunately I cannot provide you with a screenshot of my prioritization scheme. And I have a suspicion that the problem may lay there. I have provided you with a screenshot with what happens when I double-click on the word in the Septuagint grammar. Note that it draws its info from LSJ which is 4 resources down. Lust's given 1st priority in an advanced setting to the Septuagint with Logos Morphology. Thanks in advance for insight.

NB.Mick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/472166#Comment_472166

The problem is that many of the verbs in the "List of LXX Words..." end in -ein (infinitive form) -- to repeat this for the umpteenth time -- and do not link to the Greek lexicons, which they should

I think I understand where you're coming from.

Looking up a simple examle, λύω: the headword of course will get a hit with the highest prioritized lexicon. If I look down the list, λύειν will occur, since the editor listed this verb not in the "lexical form" as λύω again, but in its infinitive. Double-clicking this will not give a lookup result, since all lexicons list it as λύω and there you are stuck.

However, if I check out ἐκλύειν it will find a hit in "The Lexham Analytical Lexicon to the Septuagint" which has all word forms existing in the LXX and will tell me this is the infinitive of ἐκλύω. Same with ἀναλύειν and ἀπολύειν.

Thus it seems, the listing of λύειν refers to the occurence of inflected forms of λύω, but the infinitive itself never occurs in the text in this form. Same with διαλύειν. For this reason, the automated lookup doesn't yield results. So it may have been a poor choice of the editor of "List of Septuagint words" to list verbs as infinitives rather than in their lexical forms.

You are right that Logos could enhance the resource by tagging these with a lemma (I suspect they won't tamper with the surface text of the resource by putting inf. of ...ω behind every ...ειν form). Probably much faster: Someone could set up a no-frills PB lexicon of Greek verbs listing all of these in rows like λύειν see λύω

NB.Mick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/472171#Comment_472171

What happens instead is that no matter how you prioritize your Greek lexicons Lust's is ignored.

No. If you prioritize Lust above others, it will be found - if it contains the entry.

Beloved Amodeo

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/472179#Comment_472179

Kudos to you but I had a shower and discovered my error. Thank you, Thank you NB which is short for Nota Bene note well

-Beloved

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/472182#Comment_472182

Well, I certainly would like the secondary column linked (instead of 'selection'). But good luck on that. The resource bounces against HR which itself was loosey-goosey due to all the variations in the LXX mss's. For $20? Judging from Logos' other recent greek resources, they run the greek against whatever is currently in their databases, make a visual (human) pass, and call it a day. Else some serious pocket-change.

Beloved Amodeo

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/472198#Comment_472198

Well, I certainly would like the secondary column linked (instead of 'selection').

Why so grumpy? Are we not learning something? [8-|]

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/472240#Comment_472240

Grumpy? Maybe. I suppose having kept my 'mouf' shut on Rick's NT Apoc (no morphs if not already in the Logos databases), trying to work the bouncy LXX issue seemed a pretty good stretch.

Beloved Amodeo

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/472256#Comment_472256

[:O]OOooh no she diint'

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/472256#Comment_472256

Goodness, Beloved. You're right! Soap in my 'mouf'!!

Beloved Amodeo

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/472275#Comment_472275

Denise you got some splainin to do [;)]

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/472275#Comment_472275

I often get the impression that the people at Logos don't know how to use their own program. They design for the possible and flashy rather than usual and necessary. They have put more emphasis on search speed than on navigation speed.

99 times out of a hundred, I want blue. In L3, one click gives me blue. In L5, it takes 10 clicks to get blue, but once I am able to pick blue, I also have 256,000,000 other colors to choose from. FLASHY!! Problem is, 99 times out of a hundred, I JUST WANT BLUE, and so while I don't mind having "choices" and "possibilities", most of the time they aren't just unhelpful, they are a positive pain in the tail because their presence makes the 99% work I do an excruciating click-fest...and time just ticks while I'm making clicks.

That methodology seems to permeate much of what Logos does. What I consider broken, they call "design".