I am a layman trying to wrap my head around exegesis. Is there a way I can have logos label each part of the verse grammatically?
Parts of speech are easy in terms of nouns, verbs, etc... using the Visual Filter.
Does that do it?
Yes, if you have one of the Bible versions that has Reverse Interlinear capability (e.g., ESV, LEB, KJV, NASB, NIV, NLT, NRSV; some of those are NT only) then you can turn on the RI pane and see the morphology for each word.
EDIT: If you hover over one of those gobbledygook morphology codes, you'll get a popup explaining what it all means:
So the morphology code reveals the grammar. Is it accurate? That is, do I have to worry about it ever being wrong?
I am intimidated by OT and NT grammar...
Barton, you may also find the "Information" window helpful. Below is a screenshot of the the information that is assembled through this tool:
I suppose it could sometimes be wrong, but no more likely than encountering a typo in text. You're probably going to get 99.5% accuracy. They are pretty careful with their morphological tagging. In any event, it would most likely be at least as accurate as your own ability to parse everything by hand.
Of course don't tell our resident forum curmudgeon George Somsel if you choose to use the reverse interlinear. He'll have your head for that! [;)] He'd encourage you to learn Greek and Hebrew and not rely on the crutch of the interlinear.
Don't bother with those brain dead interlinears. If you mouse-over a word in a REAL text, it will tell you in PLAIN ENGLISH what part of speech it is as well as it's case/person/number. I don't understand why people get attached to those when a plain text is so much better.
What do you mean by plain text?
I mean Greek/Hebrew/Latin/Syriac sans decoder ring symbols sans a translation (to which you will probably pay more attention than to the original text), sans lemma (which you can get from the pop-up or a linked lexicon).
You just spoke gibberish to me!
Don't bother with those brain dead interlinears.
See? What did I tell you? Do I know George or what?
This was your husband: look you now, what follows. 63Here is your husband; like a mildew’d ear, 64Blasting his wholesome brother. Have you eyes? 65Could you on this fair mountain leave to feed, 66And batten on this moor? Ha! have you eyes? 67You cannot call it love, for at your age 68The hey-day in the blood is tame, it’s humble, 69And waits upon the judgment; and what judgment 70Would step from this to this? Sense, sure, you have, 71Else could you not have motion; but sure, that sense 72Is apoplex’d; for madness would not err, 73Nor sense to ecstasy was ne’er so thrall’d 74But it reserv’d some quantity of choice, 75To serve in such a difference. What devil was ’t 76That thus hath cozen’d you at hoodman-blind? 77Eyes without feeling, feeling without sight, 78Ears without hands or eyes, smelling sans all,
Shakespeare, Hamlet III 4:63–79
I'll just stick with your suggestion!
I'll let you in on a secret from linguistics. Grammar is descriptive of the language and sometime language doesn't quite fit the description. So not only are there different theories of what is correct, within a theory there are arguments over how to handle a particular case. So you can trust the morphology to reveal one possibility ... and given that you are intimidated by grammar, that one possibility is probably sufficient.
This is the popup to which George referred:
The mouse was hovering above the word to the right in the screenshot.
BTW: George is right concerning interlinears. They will hinder you from actually learning the language.
