visual filter not always displaying related noun and verb?

So if one uses a visual filter for corresponding words, lemmas and roots, in Is 39, one helpfully will find repetitions of the noun dAbar, "word/thing," regardless of translation gloss in English translations, when a noun is selected.

But the filter does not mark the so-called denominative verb form, Piel dibber, in v. 8 if one of the related nouns, such as in the same verse, is selected first.

Interestingly, if one reverses the order and selects the gloss for the verb in v. 8, the filter DOES show all the related nouns.

In Gen 21 the same filter does show the same N dAbar and denominative vb dibber in Gn 21, but again only if the verb form is selected first. Again, when the noun is selected, the related V form(s) are not marked by the visual filter.

[BTW, the same filter DOES, however, pull up both related N and V for "storehouse" and "store up" in Is 39, AND regardless of search-selection order.]

Thoughts as to user error or glitch in the matrix?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

MJ. Smith

If you provide a concrete example with the texts and words involved (a screen shot would likely work), we can view the reverse interlinear and likely explain the results.

Don Parker

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1235011#Comment_1235011

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1235024#Comment_1235024

Ah, you need to use the paper clip or the amber icon to its right to embed an image.

Don Parker

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1235024#Comment_1235024

Sorry. Pasted screen shot but didn't load. Not adept at uploading acceptable screen shots on this forum.

I think if you simply create visual filter for corresponding words and check lemmas and roots, then just click in Is 39.8 the verb gloss (in ESV "spoken/you have spoken") you will see all related nouns marked by the filter. However, if you select the word "word" in verse 8, only the nouns and not the related verb will be marked.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1235027#Comment_1235027

Pasted screen shot but didn't load.

No pasting doesn't work. Use the paperclip icon.

You mean here? The lemma and roots don't match ... although the secondary root does match.

Don Parker

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1235027#Comment_1235027

Well, you may have indicated where part of the issue lies, in that the Rev Int links to a homonym, a different root.

But in that case, why would the filter link the noun and verb forms at all? i.e., Why one way presuming two roots and, in a different ordered filter search, linking the results as under the same root? That's what I am trying to clarify - Perhaps if nouns are all tagged as root I and verb as root II, there is an additional root I tag embedded somewhere for the verb so to reflect BOTH opinions on the verbal root, so that a search starting from the verb will bring up all possible links, but not vice-versa. That is interesting if so and may be helpful to advertise somewhere - particularly for a Bible student working solely from the English text and relying on such a visual filter. Is this noted in Logos docs somewhere?

[BTW, The issue, IMHO, is not insignificant for interpretation of this verse - commonly taken as highlighting the narcissism of Hezekiah VS. the surety of God's spoken word, as emphasized throughout the chapter via this leitwort. That is, even if the verb is considered a distinct root, the text is making an association, which may be missed if relying only on such a visual filter, when starting from the noun form, which occurs first in the short chapter.]

Don Parker

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1235039#Comment_1235039

Ahh, you indeed pinpointed the issue!! (you may ignore my previous post opened and written prior to seeing that). TY!

Might you be so kind to help explain the search/order of operations a bit more to me on the filter. I had assumed (my mistake) that selecting both lemmas and roots would turn up either/or as matches. How would I set the filter to show EITHER a lemma or root match so as to not miss the verb result when starting from the noun form?

Don Parker

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1235045#Comment_1235045

Looking again at the screen shot, perhaps solely root on filter? Since both tags appear there for such a debated root? That's pretty amazing if Logos tagged all such debated root origins.

Don Parker

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1235046#Comment_1235046

Well, I tried just with root on filter and Vb doesn't show in results from noun-originated search. So kinda back to square one: How to create a filter to show same results starting from a noun form search, i.e., all possible linkages even if lexicographers differ on i.d. of root? (With current filter, only shown when starting from Vb form.)

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1235048#Comment_1235048

Unfortunately, I don't know the answer to these questions. Someone else will need to step in.

Don Parker

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1235061#Comment_1235061

TY for your interaction. Always insightful.

Graham Criddle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1235078#Comment_1235078

If I have followed the discussion - and your examples - properly then the behaviour Logos is exhibiting could be described like this:

When matching on shared root, the matching algorithm takes just the first (or only) root and will indicate a match in any word that has a corresponding root (and if the word has multiple roots all of these roots are checked).

Is that a correct analysis?

If so, it would be interesting to hear from someone at Faithlife whether this is intended behaviour.

Don Parker

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1235079#Comment_1235079

My opinion is that you have probably described the processing end quite clearly.

And I am content to let programmers decide if that is the only or best solution they see. Initially, I am kinda impressed that logos makes a connection (at least from one end) with some/many? ambiguous root homonyms, like it does in several places with this particular verb. (So that while accepting perhaps the more modern view of a different verbal root logos still connects - from one end only - to a related noun, at least graphically, and in this case semantically on a surface level, even while parsing the noun as from another root!) On the other hand, it seems like logos' different results, depending on the starting point of noun or verb, presents both the best and worst of two worlds as it were, hiding or revealing a morphological and/or textual linkage depending on starting point. Starting from the noun, a more current lexicographical approach might commend logos for not finding a linkage to the verb; also, lets say, a more traditional lexicographer, would be happy with the filter search results starting from the verbal form and tying it to the noun form(s).

Others (like me) might be interested in something like a textual or narrative (in this ex.) analysis - content to let the lexicographers do battle and let the dust settle wherever it may as to the actual root - they just want to see any possible connections at a glance by way of a textual filter, whether selecting the noun or verbal form as a starting point. [Then with a further look, the matter of homonymic root ambiguity can be delved into and such a connection rejected/accepted either on lexical or textual grounds. But stage one would be to surface any possible connection.]

So, in the meantime, I don't suppose you might suggest a work-around for me until or even if they decide to make any modification? Again, thoughts as to how to replicate the broader search results, identical to that generated by starting from a verb Vs noun, via a standard-type visual filter?

Graham Criddle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1235097#Comment_1235097

And I am content to let programmers decide if that is the only or best solution they see

As its very unlikely that developers will see threads in this General forum I've asked a question in the desktop forum - https://community.logos.com/forums/t/211896.aspx - hoping that someone from Faithlife will see it there and respond.

Don Parker

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1235130#Comment_1235130

TY!

Appreciate the feedback, too.