parsings corresponding to English translations
So the Logos morphology database seems in use consistently across all Bible translations.
Q: Is there any consideration or ongoing effort to assign corresponding parsings for differing English translations?
[Even students in beginning biblical language classes are usually required to provide a corresponding parsing along with their translation of a verse, as otherwise misalignments seem destined to produce misstatements.]
One OT example: In Ps 2.7 chOq, “decree” is parsed as an absolute noun -- even for translations which follow the MT accents in rendering it as construct, “the decree of the LORD/Yhwh's decree,” as in many modern translations (CSB, LSB, NASB, NIV).
[So the other translations that parse chOq as an absolute noun take LORD/Yhwh as an explicit Subject of the following clause, rather than as a genitival modifier.]
In one NT example, Jn 14:1, different translations are based on a specific parsing for the two instances of Vb pisteuw. There the logos EG parsing lists simply the sole parsing option of indicative for both – while the ESV, e.g., translates both as imperative and uses a note to alert to an alternative translation/parsing for one of these verbs.
[Interestingly, the RI listing gives both options (indicative and imperative) for each individual occurrence at Jn 14:1, an approach that might seem preferable for dealing with ambiguous parsings; however, that approach is not followed in all such instances. Indeed, some instances may be signaled by +/- in the EG, but only those differences noted among 3 databases.]
Comments
-
I have not noticed this before but you are correct. Good thoughts here. I cannot wait to see feedback from Logos/FL.
0 -
So the Logos morphology database seems in use consistently across all Bible translations.
Not quite true. This is the list of currently supported morphologies - supported meaning used in at least one resource.
Q: Is there any consideration or ongoing effort to assign corresponding parsings for differing English translations?
No, the current implementation maps the translation text to a standard text without the alternative readings actually used by a specific translation.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Well, I didn't mean to suggest that different morphologies could not be found in different resources. The question was more about the morphology/parsings assigned/mapped (?) to "the standard text" across all translations.
Are you suggesting that the logos morphology database is not the parsing assigned for the standard text? You are not suggesting that every variant parsing as may be found in all the morphological databases listed is included in EG or RI, right? (Only 3 used comparatively in EG with +/- sigla that you kindly previously pointed out, no?) And do you have any ideas about the different parsings even found between EG and RI or the criteria used?
But just to be a bit clearer, you understand that my question was unrelated to variant textual readings/manuscript forms but to varied potential parsings for the very form in that standard text, such as sometimes underlie different English translations.
At any rate, it is merely my suggestion that - assuming logos wants to reach a broad audience that may not have great facility in the biblical languages -assigning parsings that match (rather than conflict at times) with individual translations might be helpful and alleviate confusion. [Again, that is pretty much a bare minimum required in beginning coursework in the biblical languages, so that doesn't seem like a "high bar" to ask with biblical software. Of course, that may just be my own personal opinion and not shared by anyone at logos.]
Still, any additional clarification as to a specific morphology in logos would be most welcome. (And even the textual basis of the standard text of the OT and NT if you know it off-hand to save me some time.) TY!
0 -
At any rate, it is merely my suggestion that - assuming logos wants to reach a broad audience that may not have great facility in the biblical languages -assigning parsings that match (rather than conflict at times) with individual translations might be helpful and alleviate confusion.
In the early releases from Logos/Libronix, the parsing did reflect the specific translation to the degree possible. In this form, few translations had RI's. To expand the RI's, Logos took the approach of tagging a very limited number of original language resources. These are identified in the Reverse Interlinear section of the Information Panel for the library - note the use of the term "aligns"
A particular translation is mapped onto an original language source which generally does not show all possible parsings for a given word but shows alternative parsings only when the text is considered ambiguous. No textual variants are noted either. Taking this approach makes it possible for Logos to provide RI's for many translations in many languages ... but, as you note, at the cost of precision in the tagging for each specific translation.
Logos was not good at documenting its tagging in its early years. For documentation, I had to settle for the following resources:
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Wow. So some of the RI's used different source texts; that could also become confusing at some points. I also wonder if those source texts were always indeed the Ur-text the translators of the different versions had before them. Good to know.
I think you had mentioned some other differences between earlier and later Logos versions, not all of which seems progress to me. (So the idea initially seemed to be giving accurate morphological info based on a translation, but moved to pumping out multiple RIs without regard to corresponding accuracy/consistency for the different translations.)
I appreciate this info as to underlying specific Gk/Ar/Heb texts in response to my last Q at the end of my last post.
I'm still a bit unclear as to exactly how logos settled on a "standard text" at some point and as to the specific system of morph-tagging aligned with that text, and then I guess pumped into pretty much all later RIs? (Differences between RIs and EG parsing are also a bit of a curiosity.)
I always learn something from your posts. TY.
0
