Help Request - Issue with Clause Search

Hey guys, I'm new to Logos and wondering if you can help me out. I want to use the clause (and syntax) search functions, but my copies of the UBS5 (with morphology) and the NA28 are not showing up as a searchable resource. The only searchable resources for clause is the SBLGNT, LXXSwete and the LBH. What am I missing here?

Find more posts tagged with

Desktop App

Comments

MJ. Smith

See Morphological Search (logos.com) for an example of the resources available for a morphology search ... depending upon the morphology system you select.

Mal Walker

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1238189#Comment_1238189

This is the concern here, specifically the clause and syntax search tabs. All my bibles are showing up correctly in the morph tab, but the clause tab for example only allows me to search the SBLGNT, LXXSwete and the LHB.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1238195#Comment_1238195

IIRC the syntax search depends upon clause visualization resources. Which do you own?

NB.Mick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1238189#Comment_1238189

See Morphological Search (logos.com) for an example of the resources available for a morphology search ... depending upon the morphology system you select.

MJ, I think he was asking about Clause search rather than Morph search (and I remember you being an expert in this kind of thing with the agens, experiens etc.) - I seem to see only SBLGNT, Logos LXX and LHB being offered for the Clause search as well. This would cover the whole canon and would make sense in a way, as those tagging would be applied to a version of an original language text where FL has full control over. I'm not sure if this always has been the case (and I'm no longer running L9 to check if the L10-update to search changed it)

EDIT: the above may be superseded by now. But Syntax search definitely only runs on a few number of special resources, like cascadia or open text.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1238195#Comment_1238195

My apologies ... I did a rotten job of multitasking. See Clause Search – Logos Help Center Yes, you are limited to your clause visualization resources without mapping back to your other translations.

Mal Walker

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1238198#Comment_1238198

Is there a reasons the old timers here prefer to use their initials followed by last name? :P

But yeah, I'll dive into the Logos help center resources some more MJ. My main concern is that the SBL is not used within my academic context, they instead prefer the NA28 or UBS5. Am I still able to run the types of searches the clause tab lists, for example searching for an entity as subject (subject:Abraham) within the morph tab?

Additionally, I have Leedy's 'Greek New Testament Sentence Diagrams,' is that counted as a clause visualization resource for syntax searches?

Graham Criddle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1238204#Comment_1238204

Am I still able to run the types of searches the clause tab lists, for example searching for an entity as subject (subject:Abraham) within the morph tab?

No, I'm afraid this is not possible as the morph search focuses on morphology and not grammatical or semantic roles.

Additionally, I have Leedy's 'Greek New Testament Sentence Diagrams,' is that counted as a clause visualization resource for syntax searches?

I'm afraid not as it doesn't have the required tagging.

Mal Walker

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1238207#Comment_1238207

Thanks Graham.

NB.Mick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1238204#Comment_1238204

My main concern is that the SBL is not used within my academic context, they instead prefer the NA28 or UBS5.

For the absolutely most part the SBL GNT will have the exact same text as NA28 or UBS5. You can easily check this when using the clause search, via the "add versions" functionality that stands another bible next to the search results:

Mal Walker

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1238228#Comment_1238228

Mmmm, that seems a good work around for now NB, thank you!