Why Does This Search Work?

Kind of like a reverse-reverse interlinear. 

The tagging beneath the text contains Strongs numbering, English glosses, and parsing (morphology).  Any of those fields can be used in a search.

You can see the available search fields by clicking the little circled i in the right hand top corner of the "locator bar"

EDIT: this extensive tagging is a key part of the reason that Logos resources sometimes cost more than other companies. All of that tagging takes work, and a worker is worth his/her wages.  :-)

TCBlack said:

Kind of like a reverse-reverse interlinear. 

TC, 

I could be wrong and if I weren't so tired from burning the candle at both ends I would check prior to posting. But, I think that it is bc it is linked to a reverse interlinear that it does work.

In other words see what would happen if you did the same search against the Byz alone. I don't think it would yield the same results. Just my foggy understanding.

Dave Hooton said:

It is like an interlinear but nothing is displayed except the manuscript. But if you hover over a word the tip will show you the available information. You can search a lot of Greek bibles with an English word (gloss) e.g. NA27, SBLGNT as well as NA27 Int.

Dave,

Because I am tender towards challenges I tested my theory with data. I did a search on Matt 2.7 lemma kaleo in the Byz alone first and it returned a greek reply, I then added the interlinear this time NASB95 and revealed the data returned was nonsense. Your serve.

Beloved,

It is not linked with the NASB in your photo.  The search is being run against the byz, and the NASB in your picture (NKJV in Bill's above) is a display version using the reverse interlinear.

That is to say the results are being searched in BYZ and displayed in both BYZ and the NASB/NKVJ.  The display in English works because they are reverse interlinears, so you are close. 

The question however was why does searching the BYZ using English words work?  The answer remains, because the (invisible) glosses are being found. That it is only the BYZ being searched is indicated by the search terms.

After careful consideration of all the points raised I conclude that we all have raised relevant issues. I therefor conclude that we should end by tipping our hats to George who would insist that there is no replacement for a thorough understanding of the language in question which reverse interlinears cannot replace. [8-|]

Beloved said:

Dave Hooton said:

If you display the Support Info as I did, we can know for sure.

Dave,

I don't think you're going to be happy because they're not the same, but here you go:

Sorry Beloved, he means open the Ntg Byz you've got up there, and in the address bar of the resource click the .  This will "flip the page" and show you the resource version information.  This is what Dave is hoping to compare. 

NB.Mick said:

No, you need to scroll down just a little bit, to the very bottom of this page where the support info is located. It will show whether you are running against a different Logos-build of the resource. (If so, the differences may come from a different/corrupt bible index).

As always you provide clarity. Would you kindly lend this poor beggar the information required to interpret this data?

NB.Mick said:

Did I get this right that in this thread you posted two screenshots with the exactly same search phrase against "Byz" but massively different results? Or did you take the first one before actually running the search (your construction history may indicate such)?

My first search was against the Byz alone using English search terms with "match all word forms" ticked. It of course returned both "righteous" and "righteousness" in its results. My second search was against the Byz alone using Greek lemmas for all but one search term the term for sin was in the NGSF form again "match all word forms" was ticked. The results of this exercise are recorded in this thread.

When I corrected my error above and searched on all lemmas the results only returned Rev 19.11 and this was whether or not "match case" or "match all word forms" were ticked. This was the crux of my argument, namely that using English terms as opposed to Greek lemmas would effect your results greatly.

I really appreciate your input Mick. I always take away a great deal from your posts. Thanks.

-Beloved

Dave Hooton said:

The main point of the thread was that you can get results using (English) glosses in a Greek bible. You have been very inventive in making your point but it is one that didn't need to be made and has only generated confusion.

I concede the main assertion and being counter to it generated confusion. I have learned from this and I am therefor grateful for all input to the contrary, thanks to you Dave, TC and NB Mick.