I have 'Portfolio' plus quite a few additions and am surprised that 'Christos' doesn't find a definition when 'looked-up'.
Surely I am missing something obvious?
Christ
Perhaps you are missing that it is a transliterated word and hence not tagged with its language. Therefore it will not be looked up as a Greek word which it is.
Surely I am missing something obvious? Perhaps you are missing that it is a transliterated word and hence not tagged with its language. Therefore it will not be looked up as a Greek word which it is.
You have explained the accurate technical reason.
It is just that I, some how, expect that the 'technical' words I come across will be tagged back to one or the other of the many 'Dictionaries of' which I seem to have cluttering up my hard drive but not appearing when I want/need them to.
Strangely your explanation doesn't seem to apply in all cases?
Mike is on to something here.
when I right-click on Kosmos on my home screen it brings up the Eerdmans Bible Dictionary and I am taken to the article on World. But if I click on Christos in any article it wont bring up that Dictionary.
However I have several dictionaries so only one (!) Dictionary on kosmos makes me think there is a lack of tagging for such technical words.
You see I never thought technical words were tagged partially because they vary too much by denomination. I've been surprised that the common technical Hebrew/Greek/Latin terms aren't tagged by language when transliterated although I have learned why I'd still like to be able to tag them.
You are right again Martha but thinking of this from the view point of a new (English Speaking) user who wants to study the bible and work through the odd commentary or dictionary. That user is unlikely to need a definition for the few thousand words each of us has in our general vocabulary*. They are however going to come a cropper the first time they come across a word like Christos. It looks like Christ, it almost sounds like Christ, but is it?
Such a user is going to feel let down, and wonder if the effort of Logos is worth the candle. Working through Christian Origins makes me feel like that almost daily. Give thanks for Wikipedia which comes to my aid a lot more often than it should need to.
*once they have worked out the equivalence of Saviour and Savior, neighbor and neighbour etc
There must be some dictionary of terms for a student just starting in scripture studies that Logos could use to provide the definitions. Anyone have any knowledge of such resources?
Here is another example...
Here the first word in italics gets no response from the Information panel but the other two words do!
So in order to find out what dikaiosune means I need to conduct a search like so...
I probably need some way of predicting which resources are likely to help me out and create a collection.
Can somebody suggest a collection rule to accomplish this.
Or is there a better way?
I must reiterate though, that providing such definitions should be a basic function of Logos.
What you're really suggesting, Mike, is that Logos ought to publish a lexicon with transliterated headwords, so that there's a keylink destination for all transliterated words. I think that would be a very useful resource.
However, that's easier said than done because:
But — for the NT at least — a programmer could automate this process using existing morphological data and English glosses to produce a potentially very useful resource. I agree that's it's worth looking at.
Personally, I wouldn't do it like that.
Instead, I'd use a morph search, and enter the text into a morph search preceded by a g: or a h: as appropriate. If the transliteration is of a lemma, you'll be given an English gloss in the suggestions, and you may not need to go further.
If not (or if you want to jump to a lexicon), perform the search in a morphologically tagged Bible. (On occasion you may need to choose the LXX rather than the NT as the corpus to be searched.) Once you've found your result in the Bible, you can right-click on it, and jump to the lexicon as normal.
What you're really suggesting, Mike, is that Logos ought to publish a lexicon with transliterated headwords, so that there's a keylink destination for all transliterated words. I think that would be a very useful resource. However, that's easier said than done because: You'd need to include all forms of the words, not just lemmas. Different books use different transliteration schemes, and you'd need to include them all. But — for the NT at least — a programmer could automate this process using existing morphological data and English glosses to produce a potentially very useful resource. I agree that's it's worth looking at.
I just wonder if the necessary data is not available somewhere with a free license, thus allowing people with good programming skills building this as a PB source (thinking of people who are able to create PBs from Wikipedia here...)
I thought about that possibility. It would be relatively easy to do for lemmas, but getting a list of all the inflected forms for every lemma from Logos would be very time consuming. I'm not aware of any list online, but Logos obviously already have such a list internally.
Could we get 80% of the benefit if Logos simply put into the Factbook the 25 or 30 transliterated Greek terms that are most commonly encountered in intermediate commentaries? Mike's problem doesn't seem to be that he wanted to do real original language research. He just wanted to follow an English language source that chose to transliterate a theologically significant term rather than translate it. It's the sort of problem that, back in the days of mimeograph machines, a professor might have helped beginning students with by handing out a short "cheat sheet" glossary. (Am I dating myself here?)
What I think I am suggesting Mark is that this marketing blurb taken from the web site should become a reality?
With a click, connect everything you read to corresponding dictionaries, commentaries, lexicons, and articles, and study your resources side by side. For example, you can read your favorite Bible translation alongside both the Greek or Hebrew text and a commentary—then scroll them all in sync.
That statement is generally true, but because there's no corresponding dictionary of transliteration available (and to be fair, there's nothing available in print, either) then it doesn't work in this instance. And to be fair again, whilst I can certainly see that it would be useful, this is the first request I can remember for a transliteration dictionary in six years of this forum.
What I think I am suggesting Mark is that this marketing blurb taken from the web site should become a reality? That statement is generally true, but because there's no corresponding dictionary of transliteration available (and to be fair, there's nothing available in print, either) then it doesn't work in this instance. And to be fair again, whilst I can certainly see that it would be useful, this is the first request I can remember for a transliteration dictionary in six years of this forum.
That is a great turn of phrase Mark, statements that are generally true, must, by definition, not be true. It is, of course, the danger of sweeping statements. I would be happy to let the 'sweeping statement' stand uncriticised if when deficiencies were pointed out action was taken to correct them.
As I have worked my way through the first two, and now the third book in Wright's Christian Origins I must have submitted dozens of missing and incorrect links to through the 'report typo' system. There has, to my knowledge, not been a single update to any of these resources as a result of this effort.
And in any case I don't really buy the underlying explanation -- a good deal of the transliterated words do find a definition (note the example above). When I pop the word into a search bar up pop a depressingly large number of resources that use the word along with a whole lot of 'dictionary type' resources that supply a definition. It is not that the definition isn't available it is just that the person charged with the hand making of the resource didn't do the work necessary to provide the link in some cases.
What I find depressing is that my individually 'hand tagged' resource has some peculiar omissions when it comes to transliterated words. In the case of Christos it is an omission of a very common word.
Rhetorical -- what I should do, I suppose is to check other resources to see if words like 'Christos' are linked to a definition.
Forgive me, but I think you're misunderstanding my point (and perhaps even misunderstanding how Logos provides definitions). There is no tagging in any resource that links words to definitions.
Logos provides definitions by looking at the language of the word (in this case the 'language' would be 'transliteration' but normally it's 'English' or 'Greek' or whatever). It then scans the dictionaries and lexicons in the appropriate language for an entry for that word.
I've looked further into the problem, and the reason you don't get a result in this case is because various dictionaries that use the word Christos haven't tagged the headword with the 'transliteration' language. Those dictionaries are Eerdmans Bible Dictionary, Nelson's New Christian Dictionary, New Strong's Dictionary, and Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary.
If those resources were tagged correctly, then this resource would open them. I will report that as a resource bug for you.
If that's fixed, it won't solve the problem for every transliterated Greek word, only for lemmas. For this to work with every inflected form, you'd need either (a) full morphological tagging in every resource - which Logos have never promised or provided; or (b) an analytical lexicon with transliterated headwords which I suggested above.
perhaps unrelated but there is also a difference if a word is in italics or not.
example: the word animism in italics doesn't give a definition in Oxford Dictionary but the same non-italic word animism does.
In this case the word in italics is incorrectly tagged as Latin. (At least I think it's incorrect. I never studied Latin.) Logos is therefore looking for a definition in Latin dictionaries. I think you should report it as a typo.
I run a BWS search for Christos, open Clementine Vulgata and geht e Dictonary for Latin...and it is under free Recources in Logos
Sascha
https://www.logos.com/product/15716/dictionary-of-latin-forms
This will somewhat answer the question in the thread title - only 'somewhat' since though christus really is the Latin transliteration of christos (and not a totally unrelated word, as could be), it's only a coincidence that the Latin accusative plural of Christ is the same as the Greek nominative singular, and that the accusative plural of Christ occurs at all in scripture - but not the question Mike really wants to have answered.
His later example with eirene, soteria and dikaiosune (which is spelled dikaiosyne in most other books) gets better to the point.
I bet Mike knows what Christos stands for, but the other words are not so clear - and the Definition section of Information tab is exactly geared towards that and fails.
In fact I tried my hand at a proof of concept for such a dictionary, but so far didn't succeed in getting headwords indexed in that language "Translit" Mark found to exist in Logos....
Thanks Sassch, NB and Mark,
You prompted me to look a little further into this – not that far, but a little further.
Running a basic search to find where Christos is used in other resources I find that (on a very small sample) about 20% of the time it opens a definition in Eerdman's Bible Dictionary 'Christ'
On the other hand I have not found a linked definition for dikaiosune.
I past your Word in Basic Search and get over 80 Recources. But a Dictonery would be great.
I have not found a linked definition for dikaiosune.
for me a search in my collection of encyclopedias looks good:
moreover, transliteration of Greek y is more often done with y than with u, so you might look at
note that my collection basically is type:enc plus some:
Sorry Sascha and NBMick
I didn't explain myself very well. I too get response to 'dikalosnue' when I put it in a search string.
What I was testing was, if having opened one of the results of the search I could 'right click' on the word and get a response in 'Look up'
This was unsuccessful with 'dikalosnue' but occasionally successful with 'christos'. It seems that the Logos developers folk charged with 'hand making' our resources have an inconsistent policy when it comes to transliteration.
Sorry Sascha and NBMick I didn't explain myself very well. I too get response to 'dikalosnue' when I put it in a search string. What I was testing was, if having opened one of the results of the search I could 'right click' on the word and get a response in 'Look up' This was unsuccessful with 'dikalosnue' but occasionally successful with 'christos'. It seems that the Logos developers folk charged with 'hand making' our resources have an inconsistent policy when it comes to transliteration.
Mike, yes I know. I even put together as a proof of concept a PB lexicon with headwords in Greek and English which facilitates the lookup (or filling of the definition field on hover/click in the information tab, if open) - however it does not yet work when the language of christos is set to transliterated (as e.g. in a Themelios edition).
I also wondered about community tagging as an alternative solution - this will work for assigning christos with Christ (person), but probably not for things like dikaiosyne - to cover all transliterated words (which are not only lemmas, not even in the well known theological formulae - but the UBS 'Handbook on...' commentary series uses transliterated Greek throughout), we would need a complete analytical lexicon which covers all existing lemmas in all existing inflections at least of the NT text (including the variation of different transliteratins for y).
As a work around, you can type "lookup dikaiosune" in the command box. For lemmas it works much better than a search.
I'm really surprised, but you are right. I'd never assumed that the typed command comes up with different results than the right-click / context menu function 'Lookup' or the Power Lookup invoked by double click (both: zilch) which to me looks very much like a bug deeply hidden undocumented feature.
EDIT: thinking over it: would the reason for this be that the command line is not language tagged and thus the input text is taken as English or as 'AllLanguages' ?
Correct.
