Logos, would you PLEASE bring back Andersen Forbes morph in an ENGLISH Bible. I completely understand you guys wanting to use your own morphology to expand and bring in more options later on, but the Logos Morphology is VERY INFERIOR to the AF morphology in:
adverbs (AF has more than 50 segments and subclasses, LM has NONE),
conjunctions (AF has more than 15 subclasses, Logos has NONE),
nouns (AF has more than 30 subclasses, LM has about 10 [and important ones, such as Divine name, Geographic, Human, Definite with/without He, etc are not to be found]),
prepositions (AF has more than 30 subclasses and LM has only 1 [yes, that is correct, just 1],
pronouns (missing distributive and collective numbers [and there a ton of them in the Pentateuch alone] as well as the suffixed state [which is important!]).
I was told verb morphology was where the emphasis was placed with LM, and that it was superior. Yet after an examination, I don't see many different options, and even that area is missing many of the AF options.
Given this disparaging difference in search ability, why would you guys roll out LM without giving customers a backup plan [or better yet, an OPTION] that can still offer more robust results!!???
I know that some of this can be found via other tools (search, syntax, etc), yet it simply does not seem logical (or fair for that matter) that there would not be at least ONE ENGLISH Bible tied to the old (superior) morphology, at least to honor the wishes all of the customers who would really like to have this. It makes no sense that Logos keeps getting better and better every where else yet falls back in this area. If the new one is needed to meet future objectives and make Logos better, at least allow the old morphology to work in someway for those of us who do not read Hebrew (yes, I am aware that I can use sympathetic highlighting, but its simply not the same thing).
Im sorry, but Im really bothered by this. You guys should not have made the switch without all of the options in place. I keep running into more and more resources and grammars that discuss all these options seen in the AF, but cannot run these searches or follow along with various training resources because Logos' current morphology has such an exponentially lower number of options compared to AF.
Come on guys, please work this out!
Signed,
A loyal yet disappointed customer.
