Searching the QSM Database

Searching the Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts database is not very effective, unless you actually right click on a word in the text and do a lemma search from there. Typing a lemma into the morphological search or the basic search box is hit or miss--sometimes it produces results, sometimes it doesn't. I think this has something to do with the fact that the lemma tagging in QSM is not synchronized with the Westmister morphological lemma tagging. I found a thread on the forums about this, but nothing seems to have been resolved.

The primary value of having these transcriptions in Logos is the ability to do morphological searches. Any updates in the works?

Related thread: http://community.logos.com/forums/p/22407/167212.aspx#167212

Something like the SESB lemma search in Libronix (Logos 3) would be great!

Comments

Sort by:
1 - 2 of 21

    Furthermore, navigation in QSM is slower than other resources. Clicking on the QSM tab in a layout with only a couple other resources open bogs down the program for a few seconds. Other resources do not do this. Opening the table of contents tab takes a few seconds, not so in other resources.

    One quick illustration of the problem described in the first post in this thread: When I type "lemma:גלה" into a morph search, I get zero results. Doing the same search with Brill's Dead Sea Scrolls Electronic Library gives me 115 results (not counting those places where the lemma is completely reconstructed). I have encountered this with several words--so much so that I don't bother running these searches anymore. I use another product for DSS.

    Is no one else trying to use this Logos resource, or is something wrong on my end?

    Brian ... I'm usually either already 'in' the sectarian mss's (in which case I right-click for other examples), or I'm well outside and pick it up from a search in another resource. Either way, I usually don't run into the issue you're running into.

    I don't know if Mark is visiting periodically but his issues with DSS tagging etc go back a ways (as you probably noticed).

    "If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.

    I simply gave up and moved to the competitors for these kind of searches. Logos is aiming at a different market (how else can you explain this basic problem remaining unresolved for years). The scholar who needs reliable search results in Hebrew texts should never use it.

    Greetings David,

      I agree with you. But, I hope someone at Logos will take notice of this thread and start working on these Hebrew Morphological issues mentioned on this thread as well as the following other features I think are pretty basic:

    (1) enable accent and vowel sensitive searching for Hebrew Texts

    (2) allow users to search on the non-tagged features of Hebrew texts

    (3) allow wild card searches on vowel point and cantillation mark patterns in the BHS

    (4)bring back 'regular expression' searches in Hebrew and other language texts

    (5) Add, the ability to search on roots/radicals

    (6) Add a Graphical Query Editor to Logos4 Or 5 for morphological searches

    I am happy, that Logos wants to be a pioneer for syntactical databases and discourse analysis databases, but I hope that some of the basic aren't forgotten forever. People still want and need the basics and it is the big reason people are forced to pursue other software platforms to meet their needs at least in this area. As, a theological library program, no one comes close to Logos and I am thankful that I have access the Massorah Gedolah through Logos. Maybe, when Logos5 is released?

    חַפְּשׂוּ בַּתּוֹרָה הֵיטֵב וְאַל תִּסְתַּמְּכוּ עַל דְּבָרַי

    These are indeed essential requirements for any scholarly bible software. I doubt whether it would be profitable for Logos to engage in such an endeavour. No bells and whistles just plain old good programming...   

    (2) allow users to search on the non-tagged features of Hebrew texts

    Can you elaborate on your #2? Thanks!

    (Re: the original question on the thread - the word picker in the morph search panel is currently limited to one word list per morphology, which causes some problems if we have two databases that use the same morphology, but different lemma lists - for example if they handle homographs differently. So what you're seeing in the word-picker is the lemma list prepared for the Westminster 4.2. I believe we have related issues on the Greek side, for example words that appear in the LXX but not the NT, for example, won't appear in the drop-down menu - though there are few homograph-related complications. We do have plans to remove this limitation so that multiple lemma lists can serve the same morphology in the future, but right now the best way to search QSM is off right-clicking on the word in the QSM database and launching the search from there.)

     


    [quote
    user="Vincent Setterholm"]Can you elaborate on your #2?
    Thanks!

    Thank
    you for taking interest in this thread and for explaining the issue
    with the QSM. Now, I here are a few examples:

     

    Example
    one:

    Metheg
    and Siluk, are represented by the same character, but a Siluk can be
    distinguished because it is usually followed by a Sof-Pasuk. It, is
    also used to indicate the first letter of a stressed syllable. So,
    let's say someone wants to create a list that distingishes between
    words with a the qamatz gadol and qatan. To do that they would
    probably need to run a search the Metheg mark. To my knowlegdr this
    is not possible.

     

    Example
    two:

    One,
    would like to search for senteces in a certiant book where Paseq
    occure

     

    Example
    three:

    One,
    would like to search for everyplace where a Mappiq appears in
    the letter 'Aleph'

     

    Example
    four:

    searchs
    for Nun
    Hafukha

     

    Example
    five:

    Search
    on the Petuhah and Setumah marks in the Torah

     

    Example
    six

    Phrases
    with Maqqef

     

    Example
    seven:

    distingishing
    between Pasual and non-pasual forms in searches like

    לָ
    חֶ ם

    לֶ
    חֶ ם

     

    Example
    eight:

    For
    example if someone needed to find all the occurrences of Etnachta
    Clauses (where the following cantilltation marks appear in this
    order: mercha, tipcha, munach, and etnachta) in the Pentateuch

    Thanks for asking

     

    חַפְּשׂוּ בַּתּוֹרָה הֵיטֵב וְאַל תִּסְתַּמְּכוּ עַל דְּבָרַי

    Fixed in Logos 5

    Fixed in Logos 5

    What exactly was fixed in Logos 5? There have been so many feature requests in this thread... are you referring to the ability to type directly into the search box a lemma and get expected results?

    I am interested in getting the database, so would like to know, thanks.

    While you're waiting on David or BK's reply, be forwarned that the QSM doesn't link well to the DDS-SE (or much else). I have to use a trick-pony sequence to keep them lined up.

    "If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.

    While you're waiting on David or BK's reply, be forwarned that the QSM doesn't link well to the DDS-SE (or much else). I have to use a trick-pony sequence to keep them lined up.

    Anyone tried linking (for scrolling) QSM with with "The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation"? Given that QSM and this translation are by the same author maybe there is a better chance it will link well for scrolling.

    Looks like I'm going to have to 'eat' a few words.

     I just switched over to my DSS window and paged Abegg's new translation; the DSS-SE moved along and QSM didn't.  Then I paged QSM which moved DSS-SE but not the new translation. However, I'm not entirely sure if the issue is content or that Logos isn't matching up the differing tag schemes.  I notice if the identification is in the 'normal' ID's (eg 4Q521) they all move correctly, but when you move into the specialty manuscripts (eg 1QS etc), it's a no-go.

    Rant: This is another example where the 'back' arrows are not dependable first in Logos4 and now Logos5. As I moved each resource, they scrolled as they wished. But then when I wanted to go back to where  I was studying, none of the back-arrows in any of the resources could be clicked. It sure would be NICE if Logos would USE its own software. Yes, I'm griping, since now I have to close Logos and reload it for the previous layout, and then try to find where I was.

    "If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.