LN numbers prioritized over Strongs?
If I select an English word, I get both Strongs and Lowe-Nida numbers. However, if I select the Greek I only get Lowe-Nida numbers. Could someone explain why?
Comments
-
It is resource dependent and word dependent. If you provide the resources involved, I can provide an explanation.
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 -
It is the NA28.
0 -
This is resource-dependent on how it is tagged. Here are two screenshots from Greek texts that provide the Strong's Number. I don't work with Strongs very much, but I know that it is the basis of your research. Others might have suggestions of the best friction-free workarounds to obtain this information if the NA28 is your base text. (I did look at UBS, and it is the same. I don't have the Tyndale House text, but suspect it is the same)
One workaround for the NA28 is that in the information window, I have prioritised DBL so that it provides me with several launch points, including Strong's number. I have prioritised my resources so that I can also access Strong's lexicon when I click on this. I suspect that this may introduce a lot of friction into your workflow, but in my use case, I refer to it occasionally for historical purposes.
Another option is to run another resource in the same pane, which gives the strongs number. Again, possibly more friction depending on your workflow.
@Kristin I don't know if this is causing you more trouble than good, but I love your questions and your approach to original language studies. It forces me to pull out the software and explore other ways to achieve original language tasks. Thanks for being part of the community.
2 -
Maybe this Tip of the Day is helpful?
1 -
MJ is correct…it is resource-dependent.
There's really no reason to tie Strong's to the NA28 as Strong's is keyed to the English. (It is also rather dated and has been surpassed significantly by newer resources so I don't see a reason to spend $$ to update it.) I certainly wouldn't expect Logos to update it, as it simply isn't needed and only exists as a e-resource because of tradition. (No, I'm not maligning it, I'm simply saying it is at the bottom of a long list, quality-wise. I used it (book form) for years back in the 70s-90s.)
As others have suggested, there are work-arounds if you need it.
Eating a steady diet of government cheese, and living in a van down by the river.
1 -
If updates are needed, LN would be a great place to start. However, I much prefer semantic domains.
1 -
One workaround for the NA28 is that in the information window, I have prioritised DBL so that it provides me with several launch points, including Strong's number. I have prioritised my resources so that I can also access Strong's lexicon when I click on this. I suspect that this may introduce a lot of friction into your workflow, but in my use case, I refer to it occasionally for historical purposes.
Thank you for the detailed information and screenshots. I appreciate it. Would you mind clarifying how you prioritized the Strongs numbers in the Information column? When I open the Info column, I was able to move the word info section, but it is still just showing LN numbers.
Another option is to run another resource in the same pane, which gives the strongs number. Again, possibly more friction depending on your workflow.
This reminds me that I sometimes have issues finding things in my Library. I checked the UBS (which everyone here agrees doesn't have Strongs), so then I tried to open the Lexham Greek, but in my Library I could only find the Lexham LXX. I finally went to the Logos store and checked for the Lexham Greek NT and it said I own it. Should I be able to find it searching "Lexham"? Or what should I type in for it to show up in my Library? I think once I find it I will try to create a collection of all my Greek texts so I stop losing them.
Anyway, if all else fails, I can keep the ESV next to me, as it has Strongs. I just always felt safer clicking on the Greek word to find the key as opposed to the English, as I would get nervous if something is mistagged. I would feel better with another Greek text as I can see for myself if the words match, but I kind of think no Greek text here has Strongs.
@Kristin I don't know if this is causing you more trouble than good, but I love your questions and your approach to original language studies. It forces me to pull out the software and explore other ways to achieve original language tasks. Thanks for being part of the community.
Thank you for saying this, and I appreciate being part of the community too! :) I admit that there are certain things about Logos which are very frustrating, but at the same time the more I use it, the better it is, as I learn certain ways to customize it. (Like pinning the Greek and Hebrew to the left as opposed to saving them as Layouts. That might seem minor, but it has been really helpful.
Thank you for the tip, @NichtnurBibelleser. :) I think that might be somewhat separate from what I am trying to do, but I appreciate it.
I don't work with Strongs very much, but I know that it is the basis of your research.
- and -
There's really no reason to tie Strong's to the NA28 as Strong's is keyed to the English. (It is also rather dated and has been surpassed significantly by newer resources so I don't see a reason to spend $$ to update it.)
- and -
If updates are needed, LN would be a great place to start. However, I much prefer semantic domains.
Hi @Donovan R. Palmer, @Doc B and @Garrell Calton,
I would just like to take a minute and explain, as I think everyone is sort of wondering why I am using Strongs. As a preface, I would say that I like the LN lexicon, and I also am aware of problems with Strongs. However, while Strongs does have his issues, he seems to truly do his best to use ONE number for ONE lemma, which is what I appreciate. So in my research I follow Strongs simply to keep things organized. (It is far easier to organize words by numbers than Hebrew and Greek words), and then I just make various modifications when there is an obvious issue with Strongs. Issues or not, it works.
By contrast, LN numbers (from my perspective!) are totally unusable because the use MORE THAN ONE number to represent ONE lemma. And for my purposes, that would create chaos. So while Strongs does have his issues, and I get that the text is archaic, it is still FAR better than LN numbers because Strongs uses a 1 to 1 number for lemmas. I would like to say again I really do like the LN lexicon, I just can't deal with their numbering system.
0 -
This reminds me that I sometimes have issues finding things in my Library. I checked the UBS (which everyone here agrees doesn't have Strongs), so then I tried to open the Lexham Greek, but in my Library I could only find the Lexham LXX. I finally went to the Logos store and checked for the Lexham Greek NT and it said I own it. Should I be able to find it searching "Lexham"? Or what should I type in for it to show up in my Library? I think once I find it I will try to create a collection of all my Greek texts so I stop losing them.
Are you referring to the lexham syntactic greek new testament?
0 -
Are you referring to the
lexham syntactic greek new testament?Hi @Graham Criddle, apparently. :) Thank you, and I will create a collection of the Greek texts. Tbh, I had seen this and thought is was some sort of syntax grammar guide.
0 -
Ok, so I am super stressed about the lemma situation again, as I sort of rediscovered the issue I had before, but I don't remember how it was resolved, or if it was.
If I am in Accordance and I search for the lexeme of κύριος, there are 716 hits. (I am using this word as an example, but my concern is the principle).
If, by contrast, if I go to Logos and search for the lemma of κύριος, there are 713 hits. :/
Strongs also has 713 hits in Logos and LN has 552 hits in Logos.
I totally get that Strongs and LN have different numbers since they have different philosophies, but how is the lemma different? Where are the 3 other hits?
0 -
The count varies by manuscript and translation. What resource are the counts from?
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 -
Hi @MJ. Smith,
I am using the NA28 in both programs.
0 -
When I search for that lemma in NA28, I get 716 hits. Can you post a screenshot showing how you are doing your search?
Andrew Batishko | Logos software developer
1 -
When I search for that lemma in NA28, I get 716 hits. Can you post a screenshot showing how you are doing your search?
Hi @Andrew Batishko,
If you are getting 716, that is encouraging that I might be doing something wrong. Here is a screenshot of the steps I took.
0 -
It looks like you are running the search against the English translation as opposed to the Greek text.
Try the search again in just the NA282 -
It looks like you are running the search against the English translation as opposed to the Greek text. Try the search again in just the NA28
Thank you!! That fixed it! Ok, I guess this kind of goes back to the "leading" text. So the moral is that if I search the Greek on the right, it is not "really" searching the Greek, but searching a Strongs number?? Or why is the count different on the right vs the leading text?
Likewise, if I want to make sure I am truly searching the Greek lemma, the Greek HAS to be on the left in order to get accurate results. Is this correct? If so, I assume this is the case with any text, while I can click on any parallel, it only works to click on to get to the info pane, but I shouldn't "search" from anything on the right. I guess?0 -
So the moral is that if I search the Greek on the right, it is not "really" searching the Greek, but searching a Strongs number?? Or why is the count different on the right vs the leading text?
If you are using an inline search, then it's always searching the "leading" text. Right clicking in the text of the right is just showing you pieces of data (like lemma, sense, etc) that are attached to that text. Carrying out the inline search will then search that piece of data in the "leading" text.
The problem is that there are some places in the English translation that don't have a mapping from the English to the Greek lemma because the translators didn't choose a translation that was amenable to a mapping.
Due to issues like this, if you care about word counts or word order you should always be searching an original language Bible and not a modern translation.
Andrew Batishko | Logos software developer
4 -
For example, Luke 10:39 in the ESV aligns with Ἰησοῦς instead of κυρίου. This is because the ESV is aligned with the SBL Greek New Testament, not the NA28, and the SBLGNT use Ἰησοῦς instead of κυρίου.
Andrew Batishko | Logos software developer
0 -
If you are using an inline search, then it's always searching the "leading" text. Right clicking in the text of the right is just showing you pieces of data (like lemma, sense, etc) that are attached to that text. Carrying out the inline search will then search that piece of data in the "leading" text.
Oh, ok. That is very helpful to know, and it makes sense. I will for sure keep that in mind! Just as a test, with the ESV on the left I right clicked on κύριος and clicked the word κύριος again to search it, as opposed to Inline, and that did bring 716 hits.
While that does make sense about the Inline searching the leading text, I am kind of confused that it was bringing up 713 hits, as the the only way it seems to have got that number is from Strongs? I guess with everything with this thread, I would have expected it to pull 552 hits following LN. I don't care which it pulls, as they are both inaccurate, but it was surprising.
The problem is that there are some places in the English translation that don't have a mapping from the English to the Greek lemma because the translators didn't choose a translation that was amenable to a mapping.
Ya, for sure. That is why I ALWAYS click on the Greek text and I never click to find the lemma from an English version, as I don't trust the English lemma results.
Due to issues like this, if you care about word counts or word order you should always be searching an original language Bible and not a modern translation.
I care a lot about word counts, and after this, I will for sure make sure the original text is leading if I want to search for the word.
What I am used to is that there is a difference if I click on the lemma from the original text, or if I click on it from the English, but I will remember that I not only need to click on the original text, but do so ONLY if the text is on the left.
The practical concern I have here is that sometimes I am reading in a random version, and then I am curious about something, so I will open up the original language as a parallel to check something, right click and look that up, but now apparently if I am reading in an English version and want to check something in the original language, I need to actively open an entire new tab with the original on the left to do so. That seems kind of convoluted though.0 -
While that does make sense about the Inline searching the leading text, I am kind of confused that it was bringing up 713 hits, as the the only way it seems to have got that number is from Strongs?
No, it's simply that there are 713 words in the ESV (which is what I think you were using) that have been tagged with the word κύριος
It is nothing to do with Strong's number - but to do with how lemma tags were applied when the reverse interlinear was created.
0 -
The practical concern I have here is that sometimes I am reading in a random version, and then I am curious about something, so I will open up the original language as a parallel to check something, right click and look that up
You can still do this. Just don't do it as an inline search. If the general search tool opens up, your search is no longer limited by the leading book.
0 -
@Kristin I'm still not understanding why you're not just using the Lexham NT w/interlinear (with Strongs). It's NA27 but very close to NA28 (link it). Or misunderstanding.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
No, it's simply that there are 713 words in the ESV (which is what I think you were using) that have been tagged with the word κύριος
It is nothing to do with Strong's number - but to do with how lemma tags were applied when the reverse interlinear was created.
Hi @Graham Criddle,
Ok, that makes sense that the number is somewhat of a coincidence that it is matching Strongs, and not since it is following Strongs. Thanks for clarifying!
You can still do this. Just don't do it as an inline search. If the general search tool opens up, your search is no longer limited by the leading book.
Hi @Aaron Hamilton,
Ok, great. :) That for sure is good to know that the issue is located to the Inline search, and I can understand why it would be if the inline search is attached to the leading text.
@Kristin I'm still not understanding why you're not just using the Lexham NT w/interlinear (with Strongs). It's NA27 but very close to NA28 (link it). Or misunderstanding.
Hi @DMB,
Thank you for the screenshot, and you raise an interesting point. I suppose the reason is just that I am not familiar with it. If I am understanding correctly, the Lexham NT actually IS the NA27, and not just close to it, but is the NA27 text, and the "lexham" part of it is the tagging. Is this correct?
If so, that might be the easiest solution, it would really just depend on how close the NA27 and NA28 is. I think it might be a good idea for me to try to track down a list of specific changes. Just doing a preliminary search seemed to indicate that some of the changes were significant, but I will look into this. Thank you for the idea.
0 -
@Kristin Yes … the product title is NA 27 (with Lexham) and copyright GBS (I think).
I wasn't recommending to use NA27 (sorry). Just set it beside your NA28 (maybe a narrow panel, linked). Then just glance over to it, for your Strongs number, as you procede thru NA28. NA28 had limited changes.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Yes … the product title is NA 27 (with Lexham) and copyright GBS (I think).
I wasn't recommending to use NA27 (sorry). Just set it beside your NA28 (maybe a narrow panel, linked). Then just glance over to it, for your Strongs number, as you procede thru NA28. NA28 had limited changes.
Hi @DMB,
Thanks for clarifying. I read a few articles and I agree the changes were minor, (so I considered just making a note or something in all the places), but it was making me too nervous. I like your idea of it in a small pane like your screenshot. How did you get the numbers to be under the words?
0 -
The Lexham NA27 is a full interlinear … I displayed just Strongs on the second line, since that's all you'd need.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
I think you need to click on the icon with the hebrew/greek letter (it's an on/off switch, next to the down-arrow you used to select the fields).
But more importantly, you have the SBL edition, which was a Michael Holmes product (with SBL). I thought you had the NA27 (which is very close to NA28). Holmes wasn't that far from the later NA28 but if you have the NA27, it'd be easier.
(Of the 4 products, it's the last one.) I don't know if they still sell it alone.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
@Kristin Click the button to toggle the interlinear on. The button should be showing a dark grey background to show that it's on.
0 -
I think you need to click on the icon with the hebrew/greek letter (it's an on/off switch, next to the down-arrow you used to select the fields).
- and -
@Kristin Click the button to toggle the interlinear on. The button should be showing a dark grey background to show that it's on.
lol :) ya, you guys were right and it is magically working now.
But more importantly, you have the SBL edition, which was a Michael Holmes product (with SBL). I thought you had the NA27 (which is very close to NA28). Holmes wasn't that far from the later NA28 but if you have the NA27, it'd be easier. (Of the 4 products, it's the last one.) I don't know if they still sell it alone.
Hi @DMB,
I am super confused about the versions. I get the NA27 to NA28, but to be honest, I only know SBL as a writing style. So it sounds like this isn't either the NA28 or NA27?? It is just a totally different thing?
0 -
Yes, I'm for sure not an expert on SBL (I think Rick might be). They (SBL and Holmes) did it, in-between NA27 and NA28 and it used a different approach to the mss's (plus free!!). Lexham uses it as a good affordable entry interlinear. I liked the apparatus, because he used Tregalles (whose discussions are still on prepub, sadly).
I very much doubt you want to use it for your work, except maybe to snag Strongs numbers.
To see if you have the Lexham NA27 go in your library and type as a filter 'pubdate:2008 interlinear' (that's when Lexham published the NA27 interlinear with Strongs).
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Hi @DMB,
I like your expression of "snag Strongs numbers." :) Anyway, I just checked and I don't have the NA27 or anything with that pubdate filter you mentioned.
Btw, I have been messing around with collections, and is it seriously that case that NONE of the Hebrew texts have Strongs??
0 -
Well, your best bet then is like I pictured above, except the SBL edition, instead of NA27. Holmes' SBL wasn't terribly radical for looking up Strongs! Back then, we were thrilled at a free interlinear!!
Regarding Hebrew/Strongs, in the Logosian dispensations, greek was earliest and as a result, Logos has a lot of greek Strongs/lemmas crossover products (with Strongs being quietly strangled to death). When Hebrew came along (in Logosian development), Strongs was being shown the door. So, that's why you're not likely to see much for Hebrew and Strongs.
And indeed, I think Logos was fairly early in an LN-type product for hebrew/aramaic (the DBL series). It just seems to me, Logos has always been a reluctant Hebrew-ist, while dancing for joy with NT greek. The other elephant (LXX) is pretty much kept in the closet, with his good buddy Syriac. Aramaic is kept on, like the unwanted nephew. I reference the LXX, given it's not easy moving along the LXX development track, in Logos. Basically, smacko … the LXX! And then, there's …. cough, cough …. latin.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
2 -
Strong's is so dated that there are far better resources to use. Lowe/Nida is one of them.
0 -
Regarding Hebrew/Strongs, in the Logosian dispensations, greek was earliest and as a result, Logos has a lot of greek Strongs/lemmas crossover products (with Strongs being quietly strangled to death).
That is my impression too. Regarding the NT, I frankly don't know why people like LN numbers. No offense to either Louw or Nida, but frankly, that is a pretty major issue to have multiple keys for the same lemma.
Regarding the OT, that is sort of wild that there are NO numbers associated with it. In my personal records I record words by the lemma and Strong number, so I can search for a word doing either. Given that the Hebrew is literally number free, I decided to copy the lemma and paste it in the search field of my document.
However, when I clicked on, ok, this is literally not working since the forum apparently doesn't like words going the wrong way. So I clicked on the Hebrew word of "banim" in Job 1:2, hoping to be able to click "copy inflected" or "copy lemma" but neither was an option. My goal was to copy the lema of "ben" and paste it in my document to find the word that way, but I can't copy the word?
Please tell me this is user error and I can copy both the inflected form and lemma form of a word I click on. :(
Strong's is so dated that there are far better resources to use. Lowe/Nida is one of them.Hi @James Johnson, this is a genuine question, as I know most people agree with you. Why do you feel that LN is superior to Strongs, given that they have multiple keys for one lemma?
0 -
Regarding the OT, that is sort of wild that there are NO numbers associated with it. In my personal records I record words by the lemma and Strong number, so I can search for a word doing either. Given that the Hebrew is literally number free, I decided to copy the lemma and paste it in the search field of my document
I hope you mean, there's no Strongs attached to the Hebrew mss's. Of course, there's bunches of Strongs in the Hebrew dictionaries / lexicons (NIDOTTE being the bad boy of Hebrew Strongs confusion).
However, when I clicked on, ok, this is literally not working since the forum apparently doesn't like words going the wrong way. So I clicked on the Hebrew word of "banim" in Job 1:2, hoping to be able to click "copy inflected" or "copy lemma" but neither was an option.
'Copy' confused me as well, if I'm understanding (vs transliteration). I like to copy the lemma into my lemma looker-upper which points to my lexicons in my layout. It turns out, the right-click menu for inflected, uses 'Copy' (easy to see), and the lemma, instead uses 'Text' (in the Copy Reference line). At least that's the way I grab it .. easier than a keyboard copy. If I'm wrong, I can be corrected!
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
No offense to either Louw or Nida, but frankly, that is a pretty major issue to have multiple keys for the same lemma.
There are a number of reasons why wordnets similar to the Bible sense lexicon and semantic domain organization such as Louw-Nida are slowly taking over the front spot in linguistics. But they are intended to convey more (and different) information than a standard lexicon. Because they are not organized by lemmas they allow lemmas to appear wherever they are applicable. Andersen-Forbes did some exploratory work on semantic domains for Hebrew but I think Swanson is the only English language Hebrew resources applying LN numbers to Hebrew. See Swanson, James. Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains : Hebrew (Old Testament). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997.
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 -
I hope you mean, there's no Strongs attached to the Hebrew mss's. Of course, there's bunches of Strongs in the Hebrew dictionaries / lexicons (NIDOTTE being the bad boy of Hebrew Strongs confusion).
Hi @DMB,
Right, I mean if I hover over a word in Hebrew, there are no numbers or anything at all. At least in the Greek you get these LN numbers.
'Copy' confused me as well, if I'm understanding (vs transliteration). I like to copy the lemma into my lemma looker-upper which points to my lexicons in my layout. It turns out, the right-click menu for inflected, uses 'Copy' (easy to see), and the lemma, instead uses 'Text' (in the Copy Reference line). At least that's the way I grab it .. easier than a keyboard copy. If I'm wrong, I can be corrected!
Ya, to be clear, I meant copying the Hebrew, for sure not a transliteration (I had just been using it hear since any time I tried to type in Hebrew this website kept moving ALL the text to the right and just wasn't handling it well. I even tried putting it in brackets, but it still didn't work well. Anyway, I clicked "text" and it copied the lemma! :) So then I pasted the copied thing into my document and it found my entry, so that is at least workable. :) Could you explain again how to copy the inflected form? So far I can only copy the lemma.
There are a number of reasons why wordnets similar to the Bible sense lexicon and semantic domain organization such as Louw-Nida are slowly taking over the front spot in linguistics. But they are intended to convey more (and different) information than a standard lexicon. Because they are not organized by lemmas they allow lemmas to appear wherever they are applicable.
Hi @MJ. Smith,
I hope this doesn't come across wrong, but this seems to be an argument for why it is a good lexicon. As mentioned a few times above, I really like them as a lexicon. Their numbering system is a major problem though, as they literally have multiple keys for the same lemma. I can understand that perhaps makes it easier if someone wants to approach the text from a very specific theology, but for anyone working with the actual words (as opposed to approaching the text through the lens of very specific theological beliefs), the LN numbers are truly not usable.
0 -
Could you explain again how to copy the inflected form? So far I can only copy the lemma.
0 -
Their numbering system is a major problem though, as they literally have multiple keys for the same lemma.
The difference is more basic. They have absolutely no numbers for lemmas, They have numbers for semantic domains. The usual example in English is the lemma ball. Picture a ball in your mind. Was it a football, basketball, golf ball, red rubber ball … The point is that in different semantic domains (contexts) e.g. tennis, handball court, football field, soccer field … ball means quite different things. It is this level of meaning that semantic domain lexicons try to capture rather than the abstract lemma ball which tries to cover them all in a single definition. The other common example used in linguistics is tree as students from different locations will automatically envision different types of trees.
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."
1 -
I think the basic argument is that with the ability to create a ref.ly link to a word, the advantages to using a number system instead of just the words themselves is greatly reduced.
It is really interesting that your perspective is that Louw Nida is for theologians and not people who are interested in the words themselves, since Louw Nida was specifically designed for translators. You might enjoy reading the preface and introduction to their lexicon to find their justification for their approach, which will explain why many prefer them.
Using Logos as a pastor, seminary professor, and Tyndale author
0 -
since Louw Nida was specifically designed for translators.
That is likely true but in linguistics the concept of semantic domains is nearly a century old arising out of structuralism, Wittgenstein, cognitive anthropology, … It has been implied by the way elementary school children are taught new vocabulary through graphic organizers for several decades.
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 -
@DMB wrote:
And indeed, I think Logos was fairly early in an LN-type product for hebrew/aramaic (the DBL series). It just seems to me, Logos has always been a reluctant Hebrew-ist, while dancing for joy with NT greek. The other elephant (LXX) is pretty much kept in the closet, with his good buddy Syriac. Aramaic is kept on, like the unwanted nephew. I reference the LXX, given it's not easy moving along the LXX development track, in Logos. Basically, smacko … the LXX! And then, there's …. cough, cough …. latin.
I think this is a fascinating take on the state of original languages in Logos and this kind of dicussion was what I was advocating for in another original language thread not long ago.
If I can make it to one of @Mark Barnes (Logos) version release webcasts, I would really value understanding what Logos' future strategy for original language studies is. Especially with BibleWorks gone and Accordance stalling out, even if it is niche, I wonder if market demand has increased. At least even for me, far from a scholar, I am keen to see continous debate and development in this area.
1 -
- Strong's is a concordance not a lexicon. It tells you where you can find the word, or where it occurs, then how the KJV translates is, which is not always the correct way it should be translated, though or comprehensive.
- The strong's is very outdated, published in 1890, and based from lexicons published over 50 years prior to that. The lexicographical advancement in the last 100 years has been astronomical in comparison to what it offers. To use a 19th century work, is not adequate for study in todays day and age.
- Methodological issues within the Strongs. - The root fallacy, etymological fallacies, appeals to cognates in Arabic, Akkadian, and other languages that are not accurate.
For these reasons, when studying you want up to date lexicons such as HALOT/BDAG, Brills Lexicon on the NT, or the LN of Greek semantic domains. People use the BDB, but as well as strongs, this is outdated as well and not ideal for study.
0 -
@Kristin wrote:
Thank you for the detailed information and screenshots. I appreciate it. Would you mind clarifying how you prioritized the Strongs numbers in the Information column? When I open the Info column, I was able to move the word info section, but it is still just showing LN numbers.
OK… now we have to go into the bowels of Logos. This is the blessing and curse of Logos being like a Swiss Army knife.
One of my frustrations is that Logos uses a one-size-fits-all prioritisation list. Perhaps for simplicity, the assumption is that you set your top resources, which you want to see in every tool.
My challenge is that I use tools differently in various layouts because I am in different reading and studying modes. Therefore, if you get your priorities right for the Passage Guide, it might not necessarily reflect what you want to see in the Insights cards or then if you get it right there, then the Word Study Guide, or if it is right there, the context menu, etc. etc.
You need to adjust and experiment with prioritisation to align it as closely as possible across all tools. This requires you to engage in 'advanced prioritisation,' which can be rather confusing when trying to find the best compromise. I have long wished for a complete redesign of the UI for prioritising resources, making it tool-specific. I suspect there isn't sufficient demand for that, so we work with what we have.
The tightrope I walk is for the information panel, and I enjoy using DBL and LN for quick reference, but my primary lexicons are BDAG and HALOT. I prefer DBL because it fits nicely into that small space, packing in a lot of information, and I like LN for brief definitions. DBL also provides me with numerous links that I can quickly access.
So how do I have BDAG and HALOT quickly to hand if I want to dive in further? Well, I almost always have a panel in my layout with the two lexicons linked. Also behind the information window I keep the Bible Word study panel linked and active. This gives me access to them, but also the translation wheel as I am a visual processor in seeing all the ways the word is translated to English in my top bible. (which also needs to be prioritised)
But… this is where it gets trickier. What if I want to right-click a word? I want to ensure that BDAG and HALOT appear there as well in Look Up. Don't forget setting the prioritisation for double and triple click!
This is where it gets tricky (I am going somewhere with this, bear with me!). If I want to click on the Strong's Number in the first screenshot in DBL to access the Strong's Concordance, I need to set these main priorities that appear in all these places, while ensuring that it pulls up my Strong's Concordance rather than another resource with a Strong's number. The same applies to TDNT and LN in DBL links. This is where you have to experiment with advanced prioritisation. Here is part of what I have set up to get the resources for each of the tools to display as closely as possible what I want, without disrupting my priorities in different places.
It's not very difficult; it's just a bit tedious with trial and error. Some would argue that Logos should make it easier and more intuitive. There is likely work to be done on this and the prioritisation panel has not changed in years.
On the other hand, this software platform is very powerful, and users who genuinely wish to utilise it in specific ways have the option to do so. Programmers either provide us the ability to tweak it, or they make the decisions for us, and we work around what they decide. I prefer that programmers grant us some latitude.
With the detailed and developed workflows you have, all you need do is understand how this Swiss Army knife can be configured and experiment until it fits your needs. Keep experimenting and exploring!
Your posts always encourage me to explore the software myself! Every day is a school day!
1 -
I think this is a fascinating take on the state of original languages in Logos
Yes I love following along with these discussions. I do not know OL enough to contribute, but I learn from these discussions.
As to @Kristin wanting Strong's numbers for Hebrew, maybe I am missing something … but doesn't every Interlinear have that already? My ESV interlinear does.
0 -
While I was out last night I got to thinking about your use case with Strongs Numbers and @DMB hit the nail on the head. I would probably try to use the Lexham Greek-English Interlinear New Testament:
You can turn off all the interlinear stuff, then be mindful of any differences that matter to your research between that and the NA27 and NA28. Or you could run it as a supplement to NA28.
I am not sure what to suggest for the Old Testament. I am pushing more and more into Hebrew and just last week I was feeling the constraint of some of my resources, hence I love the debate about what we need and what Logos might consider in the future with development.
This is not probably that helpful, but DBL is prioritised, it will give you the strongs number for an active word in the Information Window.
0 -
I think this is a fascinating take on the state of original languages in Logos and this kind of dicussion was what I was advocating for in another original language thread not long ago.
If I can make it to one of @Mark Barnes (Logos) version release webcasts, I would really value understanding what Logos' future strategy for original language studies is.
@Donovan R. Palmer I keep my fingers crossed for the Hebrew encyclopedia this month. It's pure stubborn-ity … I certainly don't NEED it. Though, there's not much else I want from Logos.
A bit of nostalgia 20 years ago; Logos' Hebrew interlinear was my Logos entry. I'd already run neural nets on the greek, which had mss files easily available on the internet for analysis. So, I wanted to see if the nets operated similarly with a semitic language. I found 'Libronix', and they had a displayable Hebrew interlinear! Not just popups and searches. I bet my $350 that I could use it for my nets … and I did. For that, I've always been thankful for Logos' OL largesse … each new resource or app-feature. I was surprised their work on the latin/Vulgate product. I keep 'waiting' for early Latin … Accordance has an entry early-latin, so that was good.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Hi @DMB
I keep my fingers crossed for the Hebrew encyclopedia this month. It's pure stubborn-ity … I certainly don't NEED it.
Yep. It is on my watchlist. I really, really, don't need it… but I am pushing further and further into Hebrew, so I could see myself being tempted at some stage. 😜
0 -
I don't think we are disagreeing. It just seemed interesting to me that Kristin felt like LN was unsuitable for the people it was primarily designed for, and was better suited to people working from a theological perspective. Here is the beginning of the preface:
"This Greek New Testament lexicon based on semantic domains has been designed primarily for translators of the New Testament in various languages, but biblical scholars, pastors, and theological students will no doubt also find this lexicon of particular value, since it focuses on the related meanings of different words. This focus is clearly a major concern of all theological studies. In addition, a number of linguists and lexicographers are likely to be interested in view of the distinctive approach and methodology employed in this lexicon.
The approach to the problems of the meaning of lexical items (words and idioms) in this dictionary is the outgrowth of field experience, which has included helping Bible translators in some 200 different languages in the world, but both the orientation and the methodology reflect a body of important relevant research, including the work of Lounsbury (1964), Conklin (1962), Goodenough (1956), Nida (1975), and Lehrer (1974)."Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Albert Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains (New York: United Bible Societies, 1996), iv.
Using Logos as a pastor, seminary professor, and Tyndale author
0
