This is from a former Accordance user trying to learn Logos: What's the best way to find all double negatives in the NA28?
Looking at the original request it had:
On another note, I had been messing around on Accordance looking for instances of double negatives in the Gk NT. I was able to do this with a construct search of a neg particle within a neg particle. Is there a sort of Logos equivalent to find this info?
On another note, I had been messing around on Accordance looking for instances of double negatives in the Gk NT. I was able to do this with a construct search of a neg particle within a neg particle.
Is there a sort of Logos equivalent to find this info?
You can construct a similar search using a combination of a Morph Search for negative particles and a constraint operator WITHIN 1 WORDS
This gives morph.g:TN WITHIN 1 WORDS morph.g:TN
There are more details on constructing a morph search at https://support.logos.com/hc/en-us/articles/360017524952-Morph-Search and a range of operators at https://support.logos.com/hc/en-us/articles/360044454351-How-do-I-use-Search-Operators-in-Logos
Mark - in general these types of questions are best asked in the Logos Desktop forum as more people with the relevant skills to response are likely to see them there.
Hope this helps, Graham
You can construct a similar search using a combination of a Morph Search for negative particles and a constraint operator WITHIN 1 WORDS This gives morph.g:TN WITHIN 1 WORDS morph.g:TN
Thank you, Graham! Ya, that helped a lot. [:)]
Does the Greek grammatical constructions dataset help here?
https://ref.ly/o/cidbdocgkgram/15057?length=72
i don’t know Greek, so maybe that’s just a subset of what you’re looking for.
Hi Karl,
I think what Graham wrote above is what I needed, but thank you for the link. [:)]
I think the Morph Query (found in "Documents") is the way to go!
Regarding emphatic negation I think this search is the way to go. I set it up as a visual filter, so it highlights each time it occurs. you can copy and paste in search as well.
section:grammaticalConstructions:"Emphatic Negation"
When I think of double negatives, and forgive me if this is simplistic or ignorant, I think of two things:
I can‘t Imagine there’s a way to search the latter. Not unless you added your own labels to “negative” words and then searched. As for the former, that would probably exclude hits like “let your no be no” assuming the no’s are consecutive in Greek.
As for double negatives like “it’s not that wouldn‘t do such and such” — that seems like an even harder thing to find. The second negative could be farther apart. I sometimes get lost just reading sentences like that.
Hi Mark,
Thank you, and also for mentioning that it is in Documents. I think that is an example of how confusing I find Logos, as I would have expected a Morph Query to be under the Morph tab, but of course it is under Documents. [:|]
Anyway, I am still having issues with it. I set it up like yours, but then there isn't a "run" function. How do you actually see the results?
When I think of double negatives, and forgive me if this is simplistic or ignorant, I think of two things: Emphatic negation in Greek, which is the sort of thing I don't do in English, and Double negatives to say something positive, such as “it’s not unthinkable that…” or “it’s not impossible,” which is the sort of thing I do use in English. I can‘t Imagine there’s a way to search the latter.
I can‘t Imagine there’s a way to search the latter.
Hi Karl,I don't find your point simplistic or ignorant at all. Your second point was ultimately what I had wanted, since as we agree, English and Greek handle double negatives totally differently, and I wanted to make sure I am being consistent and also remaining true to the original meaning in my translation. However, as you said, I finally concluded I can't find that with a search, but can only find the first option of true double negatives.
There is a little (very small) right arrow on the execution line.
Thank you, and also for mentioning that it is in Documents. I think that is an example of how confusing I find Logos, as I would have expected a Morph Query to be under the Morph tab, but of course it is under Documents. Anyway, I am still having issues with it. I set it up like yours, but then there isn't a "run" function. How do you actually see the results?
Thank you, and also for mentioning that it is in Documents. I think that is an example of how confusing I find Logos, as I would have expected a Morph Query to be under the Morph tab, but of course it is under Documents.
Turns out it's also available in the Search tab under "morph," but you have to select "Query" and then "Create morph query document." It took me a while to figure out how to run the query. You have to click the "Search" button on the top left.
It took me a while to figure out how to run the query. You have to click the "Search" button on the top left.
Thank you for the screenshot. I finally figured out how to run it. [:)] However, it is pulling 1,174 results, and some of them are not double negatives. For example Mt 2:18, or Mt 5:14 etc. Is there a way to refine it to pull only double negatives?
Thank you for the screenshot. I finally figured out how to run it. However, it is pulling 1,174 results, and some of them are not double negatives. For example Mt 2:18, or Mt 5:14 etc. Is there a way to refine it to pull only double negatives?
Did you have the search span set to 1 word?
No. [:)] I hadn't noticed that, but now I see it was set to 10 words. I changed it to 1 word, and that brought it down to 105 results.
The maddening thing about this double neg results is that it isn't consistent and I don't know why.Logos morph.g:TN WITHIN 1 WORDS morph.g:TN = produces 412 hits in 93 verses
Logos morph query thing = produces 105 hits in 94 verses
Accordance first construct (missing ουδε) = produces 100 hits in 91 versesAccordance second construct (including ουδε) = produces 202 hits in 178 verses.
Logos morph.g:TN WITHIN 1 WORDS morph.g:TN = produces 412 hits in 93 verses Logos morph query thing = produces 105 hits in 94 verses
Logos morph.g:TN WITHIN 1 WORDS morph.g:TN = produces 412 hits in 93 verses
So I went through both lists, and the results are exactly the same. I have no idea why there is a counting discrepancy; perhaps someone who knows Logos well can tell us.
It looks to me as though the Morph Query also gets a result spanning Romans 8:17-18 (as per the screenshot below) while the Bible / Morph Search doesn't find this because, by default, these searches are constrained by verse boundaries. I haven't done a comprehensive check but this seems the likely cause.
It looks to me as though the Morph Query also gets a result spanning Romans 8:17-18 (as per the screenshot below) while the Bible / Morph Search doesn't find this because, by default, these searches are constrained by verse boundaries.
Ah, that would explain the single-verse discrepancy. I missed that.
It looks to me as though the Morph Query also gets a result spanning Romans 8:17-18 (as per the screenshot below)
Hi Graham,
Thank you! That explains a lot. I checked both of the two Accordance constructs and neither capture that. While I agree this isn't a true double neg, given the punctuation, I wonder if that is the reason why those other searches (the two Accordance and other Logos) isn't picking it up. I wonder how the three other searches handle it if there is simply a verse number without punctuation. I would like to check, but I am still having a hard time finding stuff (as mentioned before). Is there a way to rename tabs like there is in Accordance?On another note, scrolling down to Romans, I am doing so annually since I don't have a right scroll bar. I looked in a few obvious places where to add it, but can't find it. If anyone knows how to add it, I would appreciate it.
Is there a way to rename tabs like there is in Accordance?
Good question. I couldn't figure that out either. Right-clicking on the tab would seem to be the obvious way. I can't imagine there's not a way to do it.
I can't imagine there's not a way to do it.
I don't think it's currently possible. This was one of the first things I looked into when I opened the program.
Not directly - a Search panel is always called Search (for example)
If you have a document open in a tab and change the name of the document, then the tab changes to match.
On another note, scrolling down to Romans, I am doing so annually since I don't have a right scroll bar. I looked in a few obvious places where to add it, but can't find it. If anyone knows how to add it, I would appreciate it.
That's strange - as you can see below I do have scroll bars in search panels. There is nothing I needed to do to enable this.
Please post a sreenshot showing where you are missing one
That's so strange. I don't think I've ever seen an app with tabs that wouldn't let you rename the tab. I was just working on a project and had about 10 tabs named "Search". Every time I changed the morph search it created a new tab, so why can't I rename the tab to indicate the contents?
That's so strange.
It's just something the app doesn't support and not something I can really remember thinking about.
I can see where it would be useful - even if I'm not sure I would really use it.
I know that Logos realizes that Accordance users are becoming more interested in switching, and this is one of the ways they can ease that transition. Hopefully it's not a "difficult computer problem."
+100. I rename tabs constantly, especially for saved layouts. This limitation is bugging me too.
Tell an Excel user they can't rename their tabs anymore and see what happens :-)
Renaming tabs has been suggested but not gained much traction rename tabs | Logos
I think it has a lot to do with how someone uses Logos. If you're a pastor working on a message, it's probably not a big deal. But if you're an academic doing research, having dozens of tabs open is not uncommon. It's very helpful to be able to organize your work. (And forgive me if I'm painting with a broad brush when making a distinction between pastor and academic. I know there's more nuance than what I've suggested).
Here is an example screenshot:
f you're a pastor working on a message, it's probably not a big deal. But if you're an academic doing research, having dozens of tabs open is not uncommon. It's very helpful to be able to organize your work.
I agree 100%.
having dozens of tabs open is not uncommon.
But it becomes less common as one learns to spin through personal collections as parallel resources. I was always taught that a cluttered workspace meant a cluttered mind - which is why my workspace is pure chaos.
I was always taught that a cluttered workspace meant a cluttered mind - which is why my workspace is pure chaos.
[:D]
When I think of double negatives, and forgive me if this is simplistic or ignorant, I think of two things: Emphatic negation in Greek, which is the sort of thing I don't do in English, and Double negatives to say something positive, such as “it’s not unthinkable that…” or “it’s not impossible,” which is the sort of thing I do use in English. I can‘t Imagine there’s a way to search the latter. Not unless you added your own labels to “negative” words and then searched. As for the former, that would probably exclude hits like “let your no be no” assuming the no’s are consecutive in Greek.
1. Emphatic Negation is a Greek construction using the negator ου followed by the negator μη (not strictly the same as a double negative Search).
2. You can search for non-Emphatic "double negatives" using morph.g:TN BEFORE 2-3 WORDS morph.g:TN. The separation is 2 to 3 words which eliminates the successive words that would be Emphatic. It includes the “no be no” part of James 5:12
You will find morph.g:TE BEFORE 1 WORDS morph.g:TE interesting (emphatic particles), and experiment with separation as above.
You can search for non-Emphatic "double negatives" using morph.g:TN BEFORE 2-3 WORDS morph.g:TN. The separation is 2 to 3 words which eliminates the successive words that would be Emphatic. It includes the “no be no” part of James 5:12
Hi Dave,
Is there a page somewhere that spells out all the Logos lingo? Neither the pop up nor the Help Manual seem to have a list of terms. Also, perhaps I am missing something, but why is "morph.g:TN" code for "negative"? It seems overly complicated compared to Accordance using the word "negative" to represent a "negative."
"morph.g:TN"
does not mean "negative" it means:
compare "morph.wivu.h:G" for WIVU BHS
compare "lemma.g:πλησίον"
Also, perhaps I am missing something, but why is "morph.g:TN" code for "negative"? It seems overly complicated compared to Accordance using the word "negative" to represent a "negative."
When you type in "morph.g:", a dropdown menu automatically appears that lets you pick part of speech, and then pick attributes. You don't need to memorize anything. Each attribute you select adds on another character. Eg "morph.g:VPAI1SNM" is a verb that is present active indicative 1st person singular nominative masculine. Maybe take a few minutes to click around in that dropdown menu until the syntax makes sense for you.
When you type in "morph.g:", a dropdown menu automatically appears that lets you pick part of speech
Hi MJ and Jonathan, thank you both for the explanations.
Jonathan, thank you for the screenshot! That helps a lot to see that it is a dropdown. For sure makes it a lot better.
Eg "morph.g:VPAI1SNM" is a verb that is present active indicative 1st person singular nominative masculine.
It can't be serious that there are "no results."
I didn't hit enter, just clicking around to explore the menu.
It can't be serious that there are "no results." I didn't hit enter, just clicking around to explore the menu.
Hi Jonathan, just FYI, given that I looked into it, and I think there was just too much info. I did an Accordance construct of a present active indicative masculine nominative verb, and there are 4084 hits. However, running it on Logos still says "No results."
Hi Jonathan, just FYI, given that I looked into it, and I think there was just too much info. I did an Accordance construct of a present active indicative masculine nominative verb, and there are 4084 hits.
Different morphologies.
Logos morphology has c. 4620 nominatives, with 3290 Active
GRAMCORD morphology has 4615 Nominatives with 3280 Active.
Accordance morphology?
Different morphologies. Logos morphology has c. 4620 nominatives, with 3290 Active GRAMCORD morphology has 4615 Nominatives with 3280 Active. Accordance morphology?
Maybe Mark can clarify it better (constructs have never been my strong suit), but I can say that looking for a present active indicative masculine nominative verb is pulling 4084. When I do it in Logos, however, there are "no results," which doesn't make sense. Obviously there are some, so I assume my formula is wrong, but I'm not sure how it's wrong since I just followed the dropdown.Also, if you don't mind, could you clarify why Logos and GRAMCORD are pulling different results? I assume that means one is more accurate, is that correct?
but I can say that looking for a present active indicative masculine nominative verb is pulling 4084
Please give an example of a verb that is returned doing this search in Accordance - I expect it is tagged differently in Logos and it would be good to check
Also, if you don't mind, could you clarify why Logos and GRAMCORD are pulling different results? I assume that means one is more accurate, is that correct?
I think more that they are slightly different as per https://community.logos.com/forums/t/147199.aspx
I assume that means one is more accurate, is that correct?
No,no,no ...I told you that the linguistics behind the tagging differ. Look at the difference just in terms of the number of parts of speech in the Greek morphology.
One isn't more correct than another; one emphasizes different aspects of language than another. Remember all grammar is a model imposed on a corpus of texts.
For example, it's pulling λέγω and βαπτίζω. So Mt 3:9 and Mt 3:11 are two random examples.
Hi MJ,
I understand that one is emphasizing one aspect more than another, but if I am looking for all results of something, it seems that the one which is more detailed would be more "correct" in finding results. Given what you wrote and Dave's link above, it appears that running both Logos and Gramcord is needed to make sure all results are captured. Generally speaking, the Accordance and Logos options look the same, but I noticed that Gramcord has this "Foreign Word" in your screenshot. I thus tried to mimic your screenshot but if I put an @ sign, my only option is Logos.
MJ and others, I am beginning to wonder if grammar is just an attempt to organize language after it has developed in a way unrelated to any 'natural' grammar. Twin brothers in my neighborhood, as toddlers, had developed their own version of English when conversing with each other that was partially understood by close relatives but made no sense to most of us. It had a logic and a grammar that made sense to them.
In public school, we folk from the 'hills and hollers' had logical grammar conventions we learned by hearing the adults speaking around us. We imitated that speech and it made sense to us. However, we were chastised and embarrassed for using those verb forms in our speech and writing. Our teachers were determined to drive the hillbilly speech out of us. Well, imagine my surprise to learn within the past year or so, that those verb forms were actually the accepted speech pattern in certain counties of England when folk from those counties began to settle on this side of the pond.
Now my question. Is it possible to create a single consistent grammar that all would find if multiple investigators independently studied a new or unfamiliar language?
My experience suggests that grammar may just be another way for folk to play Orwell's some are more equal than other game.
--Solly of Polecat Hollow
Hi Joseph,
First of all, I agree with most of your fundamental point, and I have also experienced talking to people who speak in a way that only a few understand. That said, the specific thing I am looking for isn't a different type of grammar, but simply trying to find "all double negatives." Yet running and Accordance search and two Logos searches, I got 3 different results. Something is either a double negative or it isn't. So it has been frustrating.
Is it possible to create a single consistent grammar that all would find if multiple investigators independently studied a new or unfamiliar language?
No, although it may be possible to develop a meta-grammar that is universal i.e. a grammar of grammars. There does appear to be some form of generative grammar wired into our brains but research into how our brains process language is still difficult. Here's an explanation I convinced Gemini to write:
[quote]
Grammar, often perceived as a rigid set of rules governing language, is in fact a complex mental construct that humans impose on their linguistic systems. It's a mental model that shapes how we perceive, produce, and comprehend language. This model is not monolithic; it varies significantly across languages and even within a single language.
Traditionally, grammar was conceived of as a classical system of explicit rules defining correct language usage. However, modern linguistics offers a more nuanced view. Generative grammar, pioneered by Noam Chomsky, posits an innate language faculty that generates an infinite number of grammatical sentences from a finite set of rules.This perspective emphasizes the creative potential of language and the mental processes underlying language production.
Dependency grammar, on the other hand, focuses on the relationships between words in a sentence, emphasizing the hierarchical structure of language. Functional grammar takes a pragmatic approach, examining how language is used to achieve specific communicative goals.Cognitive grammar views grammar as part of our overall cognitive system, connecting language to perception, thought, and action.
1. Theoretical Framework: Different linguistic theories have different assumptions about language structure. For instance, traditional grammar might focus on a small set of rigid categories, while generative grammar might propose a more flexible system.
3. Analytical Perspective: Linguists may focus on different aspects of language. Some might prioritize syntactic behavior, while others might consider semantic or pragmatic factors. This can lead to varying classifications.
4. Granularity of Analysis: The level of detail in analysis affects the number of categories. A broad approach might group similar words into a single part of speech, while a fine-grained analysis might split them into multiple categories.
5. Cross-linguistic Comparison: When comparing languages, it can be challenging to find exact equivalents for parts of speech. This can lead to different classifications for similar word classes.
In conclusion, the number of parts of speech is not a fixed property of a language but a product of linguistic analysis and theoretical choices. While some categories, like nouns and verbs, are relatively universal, the boundaries between them and the existence of other parts of speech can vary widely.
Exactly, and many individuals speak several grammars/dialects - think business English vs. church English vs. football fan in the stands English. There is a humorous linguistic experiment where New Yorkers were sent into high-class and bargain-basement stores ... and it changed how they asked the "identical" question.
Something is either a double negative or it isn't.
This is not true. Again, relying on Gemini to write without the jargonese I would slip into
Negation is a fundamental linguistic operation that allows speakers to reverse the truth value of a proposition. While it might seem straightforward, the expression of negation is varied and complex across languages.
Explicit Negation is the most overt form, using dedicated negative markers such as words or particles.
Implicit Negation is more subtle. It relies on context, intonation, or specific lexical items to convey negation without explicit negative markers. For example, the sentence "She hardly ever goes out" implies a negative meaning without using "not." Similarly, the question "Did you see anyone?" expects a negative response, even though it doesn't contain a negative word.
Other forms of implicit negation include:
It's important to note that the nuances of negation can vary significantly between languages. Some languages may have multiple negative markers, while others rely heavily on context. Additionally, the placement of negative elements within a sentence can affect the overall meaning.
Understanding the complexities of negation is crucial for both language learners and computational linguistics, as it impacts areas such as natural language processing and machine translation.[quote]
Negation typically applies to propositional statements. These are statements that can be evaluated as true or false. For example, "It is raining" is a propositional statement, and its negation is "It is not raining."
However, the concept of negation can be extended to other linguistic units, though with some complexities.
It's essential to note that the negation of non-propositional statements is not always straightforward and might vary across languages. Additionally, the meaning of the negated utterance can often be context-dependent.
In conclusion, while negation primarily operates on propositional statements, its application to other sentence types is possible, albeit with nuances and complexities.
One of my reservations regarding Logos is the degree to which it encourages people who don't know the original languages to play that they do. It is even an advertising point. Unfortunately, this means misapplying and gullible acceptance of Logos linguistic coding
These are both tagged as present active indicative verbs in Logos
But not tagged as masculine or nominative
Thanks for your reply, MJ. That confirms my suspicion that language is just as difficult to wrangle into any corral as explanations for observed chemical behavior this old chemistry teacher tried to communicate to students. Complexity appears to be reality that we human critters just resist because simple is just so comfortable. Really, how many of us start the day looking forward to the next moment of cognitive dissonance and the required shift in thought to bring ourselves into equilibrium?
My friends say to me, "You're having fun with all of this complexity?" I answer, "Absolutely!"
I can say that looking for a present active indicative masculine nominative verb is pulling 4084. When I do it in Logos, however, there are "no results," which doesn't make sense.
So, I know I was the one who first posted about that string of attributes, but that was just playing around with the dropdown menu. Unless I'm badly mistaken, that form can't actually occur in Greek. The only way to get a nominative is a participle, but we're specifying an indicative. Logos is correct that there should be zero results. I'm not sure what you're doing in Accordance, but it won't let you choose all of those attributes; once you've selected an indicative, case is no longer available as an option. So that's why you're getting different results.
Available Now
Build your biblical library with a new trusted commentary or resource every month. Yours to keep forever.
