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>)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/243275#Comment_243275

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

By the way - love your videos, thanks!

John

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/243284#Comment_243284

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.

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/243284#Comment_243284

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

Can add Bible intersection to Basic Search:

<bible ~ John> <lemma = lbs/el/βλέπω> WITHIN 200 words (<lemma = lbs/el/ὁράω>,<lemma = lbs/el/εἶδον>)

Bible intersection includes footnotes with references to book of John along with occurrences in book of John.

Keep Smiling [:)]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/243295#Comment_243295

<bible ~ John> <lemma = lbs/el/βλέπω> WITHIN 200 words (<lemma = lbs/el/ὁράω>,<lemma = lbs/el/εἶδον>)

Thank you! This goes to show that I need to do more work on learning the ins and outs of the search!

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/243324#Comment_243324

This goes to show that I need to do more work on learning the ins and outs of the search!

Personally have lots more to learn. Bible and Footnote Text search in Entire Library

This All Text search can be replicated by searching Bible Text; Footnote Text; Surface Text.

Keep Smiling [:)]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/243275#Comment_243275

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.[H]

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/243375#Comment_243375

Really? verses are sometimes not even complete sentences.

Text searches use convenient textual boundaries, and article/chapter (Basic Search) is better than verse. A Syntax Search is needed for sentences, however, this search attempts to relate "seeing" events that cross grammatical boundaries so a text search is better suited.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/243375#Comment_243375

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)?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/243438#Comment_243438

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)?

I'm not too sure about your distinction between AND and NEAR, but perhaps what we need is to suggest that there be a switch in the form of a simple "yes/no" choice to observe verse boundaries. Within 200 words?!! That's a looooooong loooooong way.

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

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/243438#Comment_243438

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

If people choose AND vs. NEAR then they usually understand that proximity is unimportant, but many may be grateful that the search is limited to a 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.

Logos have been consistent since the days of L3 and probably L2. Once users understand that a proximity search (WITHIN x Words, NEAR) provides better results then they are usually disappointed/confused that a Bible Search is restricted to Verses.

If verse boundaries don't matter with NEAR searches, but do with AND searches ...

Any search query is affected by its boundaries (Verse for Bible/Morph Search; Article/Chapter for Basic Search); the choice of AND vs NEAR is independent of boundaries.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/243444#Comment_243444

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

Okay - I'll admit to seeing chapter and verse as useful in the same sense that page and line numbers are useful for legal papers. It is the misuse of them as "real" that I hate because it is intellectually repugnant.[:P][;)]

And yes, I will admit that most biblical resources are built of them so Logos has met their users needs.

painfree

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

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/243444#Comment_243444

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

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/243761#Comment_243761

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."

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/243765#Comment_243765

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

I'd wager you're wrong.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/243769#Comment_243769

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.

Cliff Schroeder

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/243765#Comment_243765

So what do you do? You take the gloss that the parallel translation gives right before your eyes.

[Shuffles feet...looks down at the floor} Uhmm...me? No way!!

It's a point well taken George. Used improperly, the interlinear could convey a sense of false scholarship. In a way, it's a form of circular translation; I'm using English, to interpret English with a thin veneer of Greek floating somewhere in the background.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/243754#Comment_243754

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?

Fair Question. I guess there is nothing special about the number of words. When I first did the search, I had it at 10 words and when I didn't find my passage in the results, I increased and finally stopped at 200 thinking there was a problem. I suppose that when search a pericope or a chapter, one may want to arbitrarily choose a high number of words.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/243770#Comment_243770

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

But who makes up the sample? What's your wager?

99% of the population?
99% of people using Logos?
99% of people using the forums?
99% of seminarians who have forgotten their greek/hebrew paradigms?
99% of people who are committed to using the best tools available to the fullest extent their knowledge and skills allow?
or just 99% of lazy people who merely dabble with Bible study?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/243788#Comment_243788

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

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/243788#Comment_243788

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

But who makes up the sample? What's your wager?

99% of the population?

99% of people using Logos?

99% of people using the forums?

99% of seminarians who have forgotten their greek/hebrew paradigms?

99% of people who are committed to using the best tools available to the fullest extent their knowledge and skills allow?

or just 99% of lazy people who merely dabble with Bible study?

If it were 99% of the population, you might as well simply pay up since not nearly 99% of the population ever looks at a GNT or interlinear (or even an English bible). It would be tempting to say "99% of those using interlinears", but, since there are more interlinears than just in Logos or even in electronic media which would make it impossible to even approach doing a meaningful survey, I think it would need to be 99% of Logos users who use interlinears (I could not participate since I don't use an interlinear).

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/243795#Comment_243795

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.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/243800#Comment_243800

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?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/243803#Comment_243803

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.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/243796#Comment_243796

I think it would need to be 99% of Logos users who use interlinears

So your wager is that 99% of Logos users who use interlinears do not bother to investigate any word they do not know.

I put forward myself as an exception. To win your wager, you need to find 99 people who do not bother to investigate any word they do not know. While you're looking for them, I take it I'll be permitted to look for more people that do investigate?

Shall we say $100 with the winner to donate his winnings to the charity of his choice?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/243812#Comment_243812

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

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/243813#Comment_243813

I think it would need to be 99% of Logos users who use interlinears

So your wager is that 99% of Logos users who use interlinears do not bother to investigate any word they do not know.

I put forward myself as an exception. To win your wager, you need to find 99 people who do not bother to investigate any word they do not know. While you're looking for them, I take it I'll be permitted to look for more people that do investigate?

Shall we say $100 with the winner to donate his winnings to the charity of his choice?

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. I would rather suggest that we agree on the wording of a very simple survey to determine this, post it on, what is it, Webmonkey (?), and advertise it in the forum. Then we can determine after a set length of time from the answers whether I am correct.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/243815#Comment_243815

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.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/243813#Comment_243813

I think it would need to be 99% of Logos users who use interlinears

So your wager is that 99% of Logos users who use interlinears do not bother to investigate any word they do not know.

I put forward myself as an exception. To win your wager, you need to find 99 people who do not bother to investigate any word they do not know. While you're looking for them, I take it I'll be permitted to look for more people that do investigate?

Shall we say $100 with the winner to donate his winnings to the charity of his choice?

Well, Mark, in my previous post I put forth how I use interlinears--I do not blindly rely on them, but instead, use them in what I feel is a productive way for the needs I have. So, go ahead and chalk one up.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/243818#Comment_243818

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.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/243830#Comment_243830

I appreciate your playful bantering back and forth, but maybe this conversation should continue on a different thread.

Thanks!

fgh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/243375#Comment_243375

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.

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.

(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?

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.

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.

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.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/243831#Comment_243831

I appreciate your playful bantering back and forth, but maybe this conversation should continue on a different thread.

Fair enough! I'll shall desist. [:)]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/243830#Comment_243830

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.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/243375#Comment_243375

Of course, I feel about chapters and verses about the same as George feels about interlinears.

Okay, enough already. I apologize for accidentally sending this thread off on an interlinear tangent. My intent with the referral to George was to acknowledge:

my certainty I'm right
that I know I've made the comment repeatedly

While fgh may have made the point too strongly, I honestly can not imagine any case where my unit of study is a verse or chapter. For language study I can see word, clause, sentence, paragraph. For Bible study I can see sentence, paragraph, pericope (where pericopes may contain smaller pericopes) and books. This is so engrained in my study that I am very serious when I say I cannot imagine myself ever needing to use verse or chapter except to find a location in the Bible. It is true that my idea of boundaries and the chapter/verse scheme often coincide - but that is incidental.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/243834#Comment_243834

(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.

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.

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.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/243795#Comment_243795

“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!”

[Y][:D]

Note: I do lean towards George's side in that interlinears are often abused. However, they do have their role.