Proper attribution for Louw-Nida domain assigments in Morph results?
I was curious as who or what source is responsible for the assignment of Louw-Nida domains in the Morph analysis results.
How were these determined? Were they taken from another resource? Are they the result of original research at Logos?
Can one assume that all the domain assignments in the Logos Morphology database agree with the text of Louw-Nida itself? Or did whoever made these assignments have the liberty to diverge from Louw-Nida's suggestions?
Comments
-
Are you asking for a list of all the domains and subdomains?
If so I use the one at this site, it seems these were established by L-N and I think they are all around the Internet:
http://www.laparola.net/greco/louwnida.php
If I misunderstood I apologize...
0 -
Dominick,
Thanks for the response.
I am sorry I was not as clear as I could have been.
What I would like to know is the source for the assignment of a subdomain to a particular occurrence of a word in the morphological database.
For instance, a morph search for the lemma σφραγίζω in the Gospel of John yields two results: John 3:33 and 6:27.
The Louw-Nida subdomain assigned in the Logos morphology database to σφραγίζω in John 3:33 is LN 28.53 but in 6:27 it is LN 6.55.
John 3:33 is referenced in the description of subdomain 28.53 but 6:27 is not referenced in LN 6.55.
If I thought σφραγίζω in John 3:33 was closer semantically to the subdomain 6.55 than 28.53, I understand that I would be disagreeing with Louw-Nida and could reference that in my argument.
However, if I thought that σφραγίζω in John 6:27 was wrongly categorized, I'm not sure with what or whom I would be disagreeing.
Also, knowing the source and the process that produced these assignments would help me know better how much weight to give them when I evaluate the results.
0 -
Hi Russ.
Hopefully I can provide some quick answers to your questions.
How were these determined? Were they taken from another resource? Are they the result of original research at Logos?
You can call it original research. We created a tool and contracted a party to use the tool to provide the data. We (Logos) have enhanced the data a bit since its original provision.
Can one assume that all the domain assignments in the Logos Morphology database agree with the text of Louw-Nida itself? Or did whoever made these assignments have the liberty to diverge from Louw-Nida's suggestions?
The domain-article assignments will usually agree with LN, but the editor was free to diverge if it was thought necessary. Note that both Louw-Nida and the Dictionary of Biblical Languages (Greek) were consulted as both use Louw-Nida and both have reference citations. There will be points where there are disagreements; there are even points where multiple options are possible just within Louw-Nida.
Hope it helps,
Rick Brannan
Data Wrangler, Faithlife
My books in print0 -
Hope it helps,
Rick,
Thanks for the response. Exactly what I needed to know.
0 -
This may be off base for you but Eugene Nida's style of translation ("Dynamic equivalence") was employed in the translation of the TEV (Today's English Version) later called The Good News Bible.
It would be my guess that you could follow it and have a close representation of the domains chosen.
I haven't actually checked to see if this hold true since I don't own a TEV, though I do have the 2 vol print version of Louw-Nida(also the Logos digital) and a few print UBS handbooks. The Philippians handbook (by I-Jin Loh and Eugene Nida) uses the TEV and on a quick review appears to hold true to the domain but not necessarily the actual word. (it would be worthey to note that the TEV was published before LN)
p.s. Here, I found this info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_News_Bible
By the way this was a great question and I had often wondered about this myself.
0
