With the shift in focus to AI and other cloud-based features, does that mean that Logos is moving away from creating interlinear datasets for Bible translations? Are we wasting our time requesting interlinears for our favorite translations?
I am hard-pressed to think of any major translation for which there is not already an interlinear.
Yes, there are probably a dozen or two niche translations without ILs but unless a big one has just been released without an IL, I can't think of one that's missing (that would sell enough to pay for the labor of creating the IL).
Am I missing any?
I use the JPS translation a lot and wish Logos had an interlinear for that.
JPS is a stand-out.
After that, non-english RIs.
Douay-Rheims Bible needs to be an interlinear.
KSC
Largely speaking … yes. Even with emerging technologies, creating interlinears is lengthy and expensive process. This, in and of itself, isn't a deal breaker. Unfortunately we have found that for recent interlinears we've introduced there hasn't been an increase in engagement of those Bibles. For English language Bibles, we have significant coverage and we're moving into the category of Bibles that get much less use. However, I want to emphasize that this doesn't mean we're stopping entirely. When major translations are released, we will want to support interlinears. Many non-English languages have less interlinear support. This is a concern of ours. And from a long-term perspective, we're discussing and exploring new ways to tie translations of the Bible to its underlying original language text that isn't fully dependent on creating an interlinear. I won't go into the details but our current implementation of interlinear Bibles creates an extra layer of work that might not be as useful as it could be. So it could very well be that there will be a pivot in how deliver original language support for Bible translations. And since Douay-Rheims was mentioned, Latin has its own special challenges. However, I'm optimistic that the exploration I mentioned above could work for Latin/English as well as it could for Hebrew or Greek.
I don’t even need the JPS to be an interlinear, just wish it were tagged! We have a thread on this.
"Unfortunately we have found that for recent interlinears we've introduced there hasn't been an increase in engagement of those Bibles."
That may be because you pushed out interlinears for translations nobody asked for. I would certainly use the CEB more if it had an interlinear.
If you're finding new ways to help us connect our surface text to the original language text and have the same or even better original language functionality that's great. Hopefully you'll finish the remaining ones we already paid for in Logos 10. I wouldn't mind if you ditched the interlinear for the Passion Translation (sold with Logos 10) and worked on the CEB instead. If not that one then the NJPS.
But thank you for your response. This is good insight.
I only need two more: the CEB (used heavily in mainline protestant circles and a lot of Methodist/Wesleyan churches across the spectrum. My Baptist pastor uses the NRSV and the CEB) and the NJPS (great for OT study).
We've gotten a bunch of interlinears I don't remember ever seeing requests for. If the CEB had an interlinear it would be my second most used translation after the NRSV.
Hopefully they'll start with German.
Thankfully, we're almost done with L10 interlinears. The only two remaining are the Old Testament for NEB and NCV. Once those wrap up we'll be taking a deep look at what's next.
As already requested here, I would really appreciate if for the missing books in the German Einheitsübersetzung the interlinear data would be added. It comes with a quite big price tag for a single bible (which I was happy to pay), but the offer (see here) doesn't reflect that about six books are missing the interlinear text.
