Morphological Search on Lemma - Please Help...

Unfortunately morph and Bible searches don't cross verse boundaries. You'd have to re-create this as a Basic search if you want to cross verse boundaries. In a basic search, operators work within chapters, not verses. You should be able to switch to the basic view, double check your resources is still set to ESV, and you're good to go.

However, switching from a Morph to a basic search does make a more complex syntax than you actually need. If you were starting from scratch, the basic syntax would be <lemma = lbs/el/βλέπω> WITHIN 200 words (<lemma = lbs/el/ὁράω>,<lemma = lbs/el/εἶδον>)

John Fugh, Jr. said:

If under a Basic search, then I can't limit it to just the book of John could I?

No, unfortunately not, but they are sorted in canonical order.

MJ. Smith said:

Really? verses are sometimes not even complete sentences

If we type God AND love in a Bible search, we want Logos to look for those two words within the same verse. But if we type God NEAR love, then we don't — but Logos treats them both the same. The problem Logos has is that inconsistency is confusing. If verse boundaries don't matter with NEAR searches, but do with AND searches, what should it do with God AND (love NEAR world), or with (God NEAR Son) AND (love NEAR world)?

John (or others) I am a bit baffled as to what the purpose is of finding 2 or 3 greek words within 200 words of each other. What would happen if you looked for them within 213 words of each other or even 227 ?  Am I missing something that I should be seeing here or is it simply a statistical exercise?

Cliff Schroeder said:

George Somsel said:

BTW, MJ:  I don't hate interlinears -- I find them intellectually repugnant. 

 

I'm curious George,(no...with all your might...don't go there) why are interlinears so intellectually reprehensible?  That's not a rhetorical question.  I've heard the same rumblings from others, yet I've never seen anyone delineate the basis for their loathing,  Am I missing something?  Again, it's a serious question; is there something regarding interlinears that a neophyte Greek student should be aware of?

Thanks George!

Cliff

No, you're not Curious George, I am.  (Sorry, the Devil made me do it) 

Consider what happens when you use an interlinear.  Do you bother to investigate any word which you don't know?  I'd wager that the answer is "No" 99% of the time (perhaps more).  So what do you do?  You take the gloss that the parallel translation gives right before your eyes.  That is no way to learn the language.  It simply serves to fool the user into thinking that he is actually gaining some benefit from reading the original language.  What he is really doing is simply reading an English translation and comparing it with the original.  In other words, it's a game of "Let's pretend" -- Let's pretend we really are gaining something profound by using a translation tied to the original language.  Does its simple presence there confer any benefit?  What you are really reading is an English translation.  It is an exercise in fooling one's self.

EDIT:  The use of an interlinear will actually RETARD an acquisition of the original language rather than promote it so, especially if you are attempting to learn the language, avoid it like the plague it is.

EDIT2:  If you must have a "pony" (which is what a translation is called when attempting to read an ancient document), I suggest that you place it UNDERNEATH the original and look at it only when you're really "stuck."

Mark Barnes said:

George Somsel said:

I'd wager that the answer is "No" 99% of the time (perhaps more).

I'd wager you're wrong.

How much are you willing to put up?  Normally I don't bet on anything -- not even sure things -- but this is different.

Frankly, I find shaming others because they use interlinears quite prideful and caustic.

I prefer the attitude my Greek professor takes:

“One aspect of persistence is spending time in your Greek New Testament every day. Notice, I said spend time. It’s an investment, a conscious choice on your part. Don’t wait for it to just happen. Make time in the Greek text an indispensable part of your day. I do, and I never fail to benefit from it. If you need to, use any help that is out there, including interlinears. Yes, I said interlinears – which are usually considered anathema to Greek teachers. But if an interlinear can get you into the text, it’s worth the effort. As one preacher put it, “Halitosis is better than no breath at all.” Amen!”

Taken from http://www.daveblackonline.com/five_things_to_do_until_you_mast.htm

I’m sure I’m not the only one, but every time I read remarks based on faulty assumptions that belittle those who use interlinears I get uneasy. Interlinears may be a very useful tool for those who may not consider themselves as astute as those who equate interlinears with the "plague." Instead, why not encourage them wherever they may be in their studies instead of making them feel like a worm in their noble pursuit of understanding God’s Word?

Brent

Brent Gay said:

Frankly, I find shaming others because they use interlinears quite prideful and caustic.

I prefer the attitude my Greek professor takes:

“One aspect of persistence is spending time in your Greek New Testament every day. Notice, I said spend time. It’s an investment, a conscious choice on your part. Don’t wait for it to just happen. Make time in the Greek text an indispensable part of your day. I do, and I never fail to benefit from it. If you need to, use any help that is out there, including interlinears. Yes, I said interlinears – which are usually considered anathema to Greek teachers. But if an interlinear can get you into the text, it’s worth the effort. As one preacher put it, “Halitosis is better than no breath at all.” Amen!”

Taken from http://www.daveblackonline.com/five_things_to_do_until_you_mast.htm

I’m sure I’m not the only one, but every time I read remarks based on faulty assumptions that belittle those who use interlinears I get uneasy. Interlinears may be a very useful tool for those who may not consider themselves as astute as those who equate interlinears with the "plague." Instead, why not encourage them wherever they may be in their studies instead of making them feel like a worm in their noble pursuit of understanding God’s Word?

Brent

You malign me by suggesting that I attempt to shame anyone for using an interlinear.  I do say that interlinears are a plague since they do considerable damage by hindering the true acquisition of the language, but I never shame anyone for using them.  I would not shame someone for catching the flu, but the flu is a kind of plague as well.  It is something to be avoided if at all possible.   I'm a firm believer that one must expend some effort in order to obtain the benefit.  I do not thereby mean that the task should be made as difficult as possible, but that the effort must be made.  If a gloss slaps you in the face because it's right in front of your nose, that doesn't involve any effort.  I am considering selling my 2 yr old laptop (very high end) rather than simply giving it to her or, if I do give it to her, making it a birthday present so that she will appreciate it.  Things too easily received or acquired are little appreciated.

Brent Gay said:

I would suggest that you try come down to the level of one struggling with the languages who uses the interlinear tools in Logos. Then re-read your posts and tell me your posts do not come across as shaming those who use such "intellectually reprehensible" tools. I would be willing to wager that 99% of those people feel the same way about your posts as you do about interlinears .

You may not feel like you are coming across as shaming those who use those tools; however, have you considered that it may be perceived that way?

In the words of an old inscription "As you are, so once was I."  Do you suppose that I was born reading Greek and Hebrew?  I too struggled with learning it -- without an interlinear.  I think I am much better off for having had the experience.  I think you would be as well.  The secret to learning the language is to read, read, read and then read some more.

Thanks, George, for the encouragement. I wholeheartedly agree that simply being immersed in the text is the best way to learn the language. As far as my approach to the use of interlinears, while not opposed to them, I rarely use them. I'm studying Syriac now which has none (as far as I know), and as far as my Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic studies I sometimes refer to them to check myself on some things. And needless to say, we use unmarked texts in class. As with many technologies we have at our disposal today, wisdom is necessary while being careful that we master the tools, and that the tools do not master us.

Take care,

Brent

Brent Gay said:

I wholeheartedly agree that simply being immersed in the text is the best way to learn the language.

Just remember that a language (at least, a written language as opposed to one learned by speaking and hearing it) is not acquired by osmosis.  It requires continual effort to engage the text itself rather than the use of a crutch.  I do not oppose the use of a translation as an aid so long as it is not available right before the eyes at all times to view without effort (or which would require an effort to avoid viewing it).  If you read a little regularly, you will begin to make progress.

George Somsel said:

I need to find 99?  I hardly think I should alone be responsible to find 99 who do not investigate since you are the one who challenged my statementl.

You need to find 198, now. I'm merely challenging you to present your evidence.

MJ. Smith said:

Mark Barnes said:

Unfortunately morph and Bible searches don't cross verse boundaries.

Really? verses are sometimes not even complete sentences. Of course, I feel about chapters and verses about the same as George feels about interlinears.

What I find amusing -- as well as tragic -- with Logos' approach, is that the people behind it are presumably Evangelicals, and presumably believe in Sola Scriptura -- yet they insist on putting the purely human, and rather random, tradition of verse boundaries, not even beside, but above the Word of God itself. And people like you and me -- people who are frequently accused by Evangelicals of not respecting Scripture -- we are the ones who have to keep pushing for the ability to search 'Scripture alone'. To me, this straight-jacket on the text is a kind of rape of it.

Mark Barnes said:

If we type God AND love in a Bible search, we want Logos to look for those two words within the same verse.

Do we? I certainly don't if they are in the same sentence, but with the verse number thrown in between.

George Somsel said:

(I could not participate since I don't use an interlinear)

I assume you never use the translation ring in the BWS, then? You do know that that works from the RI's, don't you?

George Somsel said:

I never shame anyone for using them

Yes, you do, George. You haven't been too bad in this thread -- or maybe I'm just getting too used to it -- but I've seen you throw your whole artillery at poor first or second time posters (most of whom probably never dared to come back). You do need to consider when, where, how and with whom to bring this up before you post, and I would suggest using more arguments and less emotion when you do. 

George Somsel said:

The secret to learning the language is to read, read, read and then read some more.

Exactly! Which means you need two kinds of reading: intensive reading, where you look up every word and try to understand every grammatical construction, and extensive reading, where you just try to cover a lot of text, get a 'feel' for the language, and increase your reading speed. I can agree with you that interlinears aren't the best tool for the former, not if you're serious about actually learning the language, but they can be helpful for the latter -- provided, of course, that they are interlinears, not reverse interlinears. Reverse interlinears might teach you some vocabulary, and possibly some parsing, but they won't teach you the language, since the words are in the wrong order and therefore give you a completely wrong impression of what the language is actually like.

They're also useful if you haven't really studied LXX Greek, but nevertheless want to do a quick comparison between the MT and the LXX. Or, for that matter, any time you need to check something quickly, without having time to do a detailed language study of that passage. And a beginner, painfully working his way through John, shouldn't have to feel guilty for using an interlinear if he suddenly has to preach from Luke. One step at a time.

And, coming to think of it, someone learning Greek on his/her own, without access to a teacher, do need somewhere to check if that weird verb really is the form they think it is. An interlinear will answer that. 

Besides, you may not have used an interlinear when you first learnt Greek -- I didn't either -- but I suspect you didn't own BDAG or Liddell-Scott. And the kind of lexicons and vocabulary lists used in beginners' courses tend to offer little more than an interlinear does when it comes to explaining a word. And I also suspect you consulted an English Bible now and then -- on paper or from memory -- which isn't really that much different from an interlinear.

George Somsel said:

Things too easily received or acquired are little appreciated.

I'm assuming, then, that you have little appreciation for what Christ did for you on the Cross? And that you don't believe in anything even close to 'by faith alone'?

Personally, I find things more valuable the less they cost, and less valuable the more they cost. 

Mark Barnes said:

George Somsel said:

I need to find 99?  I hardly think I should alone be responsible to find 99 who do not investigate since you are the one who challenged my statementl.

You need to find 198, now. I'm merely challenging you to present your evidence.

Sorry, Jose.  I made a proposal that we set up a poll.  Take it or leave it.  I'm  not going to run around asking everyone about how they use a reverse interlinear just to settle this.

fgh said:

George Somsel said:

(I could not participate since I don't use an interlinear)

I assume you never use the translation ring in the BWS, then? You do know that that works from the RI's, don't you?

That is correct.

fgh said:

George Somsel said:

I never shame anyone for using them

Yes, you do, George. You haven't been too bad in this thread -- or maybe I'm just getting too used to it -- but I've seen you throw your whole artillery at poor first or second time posters (most of whom probably never dared to come back). You do need to consider when, where, how and with whom to bring this up before you post, and I would suggest using more arguments and less emotion when you do. 

Here we go.  Yes, you do .. No, I don't.  Just face it, you're wrong.

fgh said:

George Somsel said:

The secret to learning the language is to read, read, read and then read some more.

Exactly! Which means you need two kinds of reading: intensive reading, where you look up every word and try to understand every grammatical construction, and extensive reading, where you just try to cover a lot of text, get a 'feel' for the language, and increase your reading speed. I can agree with you that interlinears aren't the best tool for the former, not if you're serious about actually learning the language, but they can be helpful for the latter -- provided, of course, that they are interlinears, not reverse interlinears. Reverse interlinears might teach you some vocabulary, and possibly some parsing, but they won't teach you the language, since the words are in the wrong order and therefore give you a completely wrong impression of what the language is actually like.

They're also useful if you haven't really studied LXX Greek, but nevertheless want to do a quick comparison between the MT and the LXX. Or, for that matter, any time you need to check something quickly, without having time to do a detailed language study of that passage. And a beginner, painfully working his way through John, shouldn't have to feel guilty for using an interlinear if he suddenly has to preach from Luke. One step at a time.

And, coming to think of it, someone learning Greek on his/her own, without access to a teacher, do need somewhere to check if that weird verb really is the form they think it is. An interlinear will answer that. 

Besides, you may not have used an interlinear when you first learnt Greek -- I didn't either -- but I suspect you didn't own BDAG or Liddell-Scott. And the kind of lexicons and vocabulary lists used in beginners' courses tend to offer little more than an interlinear does when it comes to explaining a word. And I also suspect you consulted an English Bible now and then -- on paper or from memory -- which isn't really that much different from an interlinear.

Using an interlinear is neither intensive nor extensive reading of the Greek text.  It is simply following the English (or other language) due to the intrusive presence of the translation which can hardly be ignored.  If you really need help in parsing then you can hover over the word in Greek / Hebrew and Logos will explain it (but it's wise to avoid too much of this by keeping the mouse away from the Greek / Hebrew). As for the MT <> LXX, just read it.  It's not really much harder than the NT even though it's a bit bizarre at times.  Frequently the LXX is a slavishly literal translation of the MT even when the very literal translation doesn't make a lot of sense. 

I had both the Middle Liddell and BAG which was the previous edition of BDAG.  I also had Perschbacher's analytical lexicon, but I didn't use it more than about 5 times, by design.  

Yea Wyn Laidig, I think now that you are making a bit more sense than some, as does Mr Barnes & MJSmith. Good point(s)!!!