What about the graphical query?

I use Logos primarily for original language study (although the great prices to upgrade to Platinum have me seriously considering electronic commentaries as well). I really like the Graphical Query tool available in version 3. While reading a review of version 4 online at:

http://www.seektheholy.com/2009/11/02/introducing-logos-4/

I found this: "Also missing are the Remote Library tool and the Graphical Query. Logos has said they do not intend to reproduce these in version 4 since other, better alternatives are available."

The Remote Library Tool doesn't bother me, but as for the graphical query....

What alternatives are available for logos 4? Is it the syntax searches? What about the resources that are not arranged syntactically and just morphologically (like the LXX, Church Fathers, Philo, Josephus), can they be searched using complex relationships between multiple words?

The upgraded product looks very user friendly and the changes appear to be well worth the wait. I am wondering how complex morphological searches on multiple words in the original languages can be completed without the graphical query. Thanks.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Jon

This is true, there is no plan to reintroduce graphical queries at this stage. The morphologial search (like all the other searches) takes advantage of a more sophisticated textual search engine using operators like AND, OR, NOT, BEFORE 2 WORDS etc. You can type greek or hebrew by entering g: or h: and typing phonetically. Morphological information is entered with @, this can be attached to a lemma, or just by itself.

For an entirely arbitrary example:

"typing: (g:en BEFORE 3 words g:christos@NDS) OR (g:en before 3 words g:theos@NDS)" will result in:

(lemma:ἐν BEFORE 3 words lemma:Χριστός@NDS) OR (lemma:ἐν BEFORE 3 words lemma:θεός@NDS)

It's quite neat, but it is taking a while to get used to the syntax of the search queries; any of the beta crowd remember other operators you can use here?

Rich DeRuiter

The upgraded product looks very user friendly and the changes appear to be well worth the wait. I am wondering how complex morphological searches on multiple words in the original languages can be completed without the graphical query

First the good news. You can install Logos4, without uninstalling Logos3 and continue to use both programs, even at the same time! So, you do not loose your ability to use the Graphical Query tool.

But so few people actually used that tool, that Logos did not carry it into L4.

As far as other Greek tools and their data structure, you'd have to ask Bradley Grainger (I think, sp?). L4 does have a reverse interlinear LXX and a rev.int. Church Fathers (by Lake) that has all that data, if I understand your question and the data correctly. I don't know about Philo or Josephus, but I wouldn't put it past the guys in Bellingham to come come out with a rev int of those as well some day.

Cooper Smith

Under version 4 is there no way to do more complex searches like forcing one element to "Agree in Case/Number/Gender" with another element (regardless of what the case/number/gender is - they just have to agree) that is available now under the graphical query? I suppose it could become one really, really long OR statement where all possible agreeements are manually included. That could become a little cumbersome.

I know I could always keep v. 3, but if v. 4 has similar/comparable/better alternatives, then I can get rid of v.3 once I get v.4. Thank you for your help. It is comforting to know that some sort of morphological searching is still around - I hadn't heard of any on the reviews as of yet.

If anyone else knows of the operators, that would be really helpful too. And the necessary order for various parts of speech.

davidphillips

Yes,

No more graphical query. The morphological search is very powerful though, as are syntax searches! I'd recommend starting to learn how to use syntax searches for more advanced queries, and morphological searches for more simple ones. If you have questions about syntax searches, please post them! We'll gladly help you work through them [:)].

As for other morphological search operators:

@ brings up the morphology box where you can pick your morphological criteria.

g: and h: can be used to enter Greek and Hebrew as Jon mentioned.

You can also just use lemma: and then type in transliterated English. You can also use Greek and Hebrew keyboards to type directly in Greek and Hebrew (http://www.logos.com/support/downloads/keyboards)

AND

BEFORE # words (note the captial and lowercase letters)

WITHIN # words (note the captial and lowercase letters)

EDIT - Samuel,

Syntax searches allow you to force agreement with different search elements. I was apparently one of the "few" who used graphical queries frequently. I was disappointed at first, but have found myself able to do everything I want with the morphological search and syntax searches. If you have a specific question about how to search for something, post it here! There are plenty of people who will help you work through it and learn how to run the searches you want without the graphical query.

Cooper Smith

David,

What does the "EDIT" mean?

I also used the graphical queries - and found them very useful and powerful (there were at least two of us) . I'm sure that as I learn the syntax searches, I will take you up on the offer for help. I prefered the graphs, because in most cases, morphology is in less doubt than syntax. The graphical query could sidestep some of the subjective elements that are taken into account with the syntax Bibles (though, at times, even parsing can be subjective!) But, alas, the majority have spoken. Not enough demand for the graphical query [U]. And I resolve to change with the times. And they made for such a pretty display too! Is there any way to find out more about the syntax searches available for v. 4? I don't see any videos (yet). I assume they are on there way.

Thanks again.

davidphillips

Samuel,

EDIT means I posted my posted, then decided I wanted to add something. You can click "more" and then "edit" to edit a recent post. I added in "EDIT" to make it clear I was making an addition to my post.

Yes, I agree with the subjective nature of syntax. However, the more I use the searches, the more I get used to working within that framework (and again, the morphological search is a great option!). There are a number of blog postings related to syntax searches (http://blog.logos.com/archives/syntax/) that may be helpful. Though they relate to 3.0, it may be a helpful place to start. What was most helpful to me was to open up a syntax database (opentext.org clause analysis for example) and look at a verse and try to mimic a construction with a syntax search. Try, try, try! And ask, ask, ask.

TCBlack

What does the "EDIT" mean?

It means he "edited" his post after initially posting it to add the following information.

MJ. Smith

You can type greek or hebrew by entering g: or h: and typing phonetically.

To me this means International Phonetic Alphabet - which I don't think you mean. "Which transliterations do you support?" is my real question.

davidphillips

Samuel,

The Lexham Syntactic Greek New Testament is still incomplete. It currently contains everything except Mark-Acts.

I am most used to Opentext.org, but there is a new database in 4.0, Cascadia. Mike Aubrey (who is getting his PhD in all this stuff, or something like that. He's really smart and syntax savvy) is pretty excited about the Cascadia resource (http://evepheso.wordpress.com/2009/11/02/logos-4-is-finally-here/). I haven't used it much yet.

They all tag the texts differently, and from least specfic to most specific, the order is Lexham - Opentext.org - Cascadia. If you're interested in searching for things like participle clauses or adverbial clauses, lexham is the database. If you're more interested in objects, subjects, and more specific tagging, the other two databases are the way to go. The best I can say is spend time looking at them to see the differences.

MJ,

I can't exactly answer "which transliterations do you support," but it is a pretty standard Greek and Hebrew transliteration scheme (except for aleph and ayin in Hebrew, which still needs work).

Bob Pritchett

"Which transliterations do you support?" is my real question.

We support several popular systems. For the most part, "what you think would work" does.

Rick Brannan (Logos)

You can type greek or hebrew by entering g: or h: and typing phonetically.

To me this means International Phonetic Alphabet - which I don't think you mean. "Which transliterations do you support?" is my real question.

Hi M.J.

Note that if you're in Windows, you can skip the whole g: or h: thing and just type Unicode if you want. All you need is a Unicode keyboard installed. I do this often; I have ALT+SHIFT set up as a hotkey to cycle available Unicode keyboards. This is operating system level functionality, so it just works. Logos has Unicode keyboards for Greek and Hebrew (and other funky languages) available at: http://www.logos.com/support/downloads/keyboards.

davidphillips

Rick,

Thanks for the detailed information about the databases. That's very helpful! I have a question about the g: and h: thing.

Note that if you're in Windows, you can skip the whole g: or h: thing and just type Unicode if you want. All you need is a Unicode keyboard installed. I do this often; I have ALT+SHIFT set up as a hotkey to cycle available Unicode keyboards.

I normally use the logos keyboards to type, but have become fond of g: h: and lemma:. However, there is still a problem using h: or lemma: for words starting with aleph and ayin. Using ' and " doesn't work for anything more than 1 letter, and trying to start with the vowel sound gives inconsistent results. I was wondering if this was being worked on. It's not a big deal, but would be nice.

Jeremy

Is GRAMCORD gone from Logos 4 too?

Mike Aubrey

I am most used to Opentext.org, but there is a new database in 4.0, Cascadia. Mike Aubrey (who is getting his PhD in all this stuff, or something like that. He's really smart and syntax savvy) is pretty excited about the Cascadia resource (http://evepheso.wordpress.com/2009/11/02/logos-4-is-finally-here/). I haven't used it much yet.

You're making me blush. I'm actually currently an MA student in linguistics right now (and have been for too long now...). I had considered aiming for beginning a PhD program fall 2010, but that's been put on hold for now -- though Greek syntax & syntax databases like these are very much the stuff that I'm specifically dealing with in my thesis.

@Samuel:

The strength of Lexham is more in it's Expansion and Annotations than it is in it's graphs with have very little structure. Generally, it's very, very Wallace-esque (which you may or may not think is a bad thing). The lack of structure in the graphs themselves can make it difficult to find a given syntactic construction.

Opentext.org has it's strengths & weakeness too. It's strength is probably it's simplicity. It uses only a few labels for everything. This is also a weakness if you want to find something more detailed - i.e. it makes no distinction between direct and indirect objects; they're all complements. And in terms of the structure of Greek, it often feels as if the labels aren't necessarily related to how Greek works in and of itself: e.g. the adjectival relations such as relator, specifier, qualifier, etc. have not semantic (meaningful) basis in the language itself, which makes it kind of arbitrary. Opentext is also rather inconsistent at times in it's annotations and some of it's inconsistencies are rather silly.

Cascadia is awesome. It's a much more precise database and it has a closer relationship to how Greek actually works as a language than the others. You can ask more specific questions of the Greek text than you could with Opentext, and yes, as Rick said, it's much more accessible in terms of terminology. What's also very cool is the fact that morphological data isn't only stored at the word level like it is in Opentext, which means that you can enter morphological preferences for entire phrases or even Grammatical relations (Subject, Object, etc.). That makes doing searches that require morphology significantly easier and faster to make than before. And like Rick, it has also become my first choice syntax database.

As for Hebrew, you'll want to look at the Andersen-Forbes Phrase Marker analysis. It's complex, but also very cool. And there's another syntax database for the OT in SESB collection, which I don't have...

Bradley Grainger (Logos)

Is GRAMCORD gone from Logos 4 too?

None of the "LE" collections (Logos 4 products) include the GRAMCORD™ morphology. (If you are upgrading from a LDLS3 collection, you will retain it, but it's not included if you buy Logos 4 new.)

Russ Quinn

I am very excited about the potential with all the development with the syntactical databases.

However, it is a concern that search capabilities on good old fashioned morphologically tagged databases have been curtailed.

I'm not sure that these resources are a sufficient substitute for the functionality that the graphical query provided for searching morphologically tagged texts.

The biggest problem, in my view, is that the new databases are limited to the text of the New Testament.

What about the need to do complex searches on other texts like the LXX, the Apostolic Fathers, Josephus, Philo, etc.?

In these cases, the new tools don't help as much and the missing functionality that was only available through the graphical query is especially missed.

I understand that the number of users that would have this concern might be small but it seems that Logos has historically been concerned for the needs of those who are working with more complex issues in the original languages (as evidenced by the emphasis on developing the syntactical resources).

My friendly challenge to the thinking behind depreciating the ability to easily do the most complex searches on any morphologically tagged text and advocating searching syntactical databases that are limited to the corpus of the NT is that this cedes important functionality to competitive products and reduces the potential of Logos 4 being the only Bible study tool necessary for advanced work in the original languages.

I totally understand putting a low priority on the functionality of the graphical query in relation to other functionality that the broader user base prefers. I do hope, however, that our kind developers at Logos might reconsider the ultimate fate of this helpful tool.

Please accept this suggestion knowing it comes from a very supportive user who is extremely grateful to this company for the value they have added to our ability to study the Bible.

Bob Pritchett

At ETS we got to talk to a graphical query user in person, who made a compelling case for some improvements in our non-syntax morph searching. We'll work on improving this soon, though I can't yet say if it'll be the old graphical query or something newer (and better!).

Thanks for the feedback on this!

Jim

If you have a specific question about how to search for something, post it here!

I'm not very experienced at the morph & graphical queries, but want to learn more so I want to take you up on your offer of help regarding a recent topic I was researching.

I want to search the entire NA27 for "the faith", that is an article followed by the noun where they agree in case and number ( I think all possibilities are singular) while the set can be any case. The article should be say within 2 or 3 words of the noun. (Question: when you say WITHIN 3 words, is that count inclusive of the two words being specified, thus allowing only one intervening word or does that allow 2 intervening words?)

Thanks.

Robert Pavich

I want to search the entire NA27 for "the faith", that is an article followed by the noun where they agree in case and number ( I think all possibilities are singular) while the set can be any case. The article should be say within 2 or 3 words of the noun. (Question: when you say WITHIN 3 words, is that count inclusive of the two words being specified, thus allowing only one intervening word or does that allow 2 intervening words?)

Jim,

This did it for me:

lemma:ὁ@D?S BEFORE 2 words lemma:πίστις@N?S

Morph search in NA27; articles that are singular before two words "pistis" that is also a singular noun.

If you have beta you can sort them in analysis view by case....

what you don't get from this is the "case agreement thing"

You could also do it like this:

lemma:ὁ@DNS BEFORE 2 words lemma:πίστις@NNS (For nominative)

And do it for all of the cases and have a separate passage list for each or put them into a spread sheet...

Kevin Becker

(Question: when you say WITHIN 3 words, is that count inclusive of the two words being specified, thus allowing only one intervening word or does that allow 2 intervening words?)

WITHIN 3 Words allows 2 intervening words to exist.

I checked this by running this search with WITHIN 2 and WITHIN 3 and created passage lists for both. I then subtracted the WITHIN 2 results from the WITHIN 3 results and got these results

Hope this helps.

EDIT: I can't remember if you're running the Beta. Passage lists are from the 4.0c Beta if you didn't know that already.

davidphillips

that is an article followed by the noun where they agree in case and number

In order to specify that there is agreement with case and number, a syntax search can be used:

Word 1 is set to agree with word 2 in both case and number

I get 101 results with this search. The benefit of a syntax search over a simple morphological search in this case is that you can make sure the article is actually governing the noun.