Reliability of Morph searches in Logos vs Bibleworks vs Accordance

Let's state from the onset here that I am not trying to advertise Bibleworks or Accordance or enter into a debate about which software is best. Please do not highjack this thread with this conversation.

AS A LOGOS USER, here is the problem:

1. Doing PhD work, we search a root in Hebrew, we get a count. Then we read on the root and find a different count in a lexical resource. After toying with different type of searches, we finally find the missing entries (as I recall, it was cognate participles).

2. The word is out in the academic community that Accordance or Bibleworks are more reliable when it comes to language work. As I heard it from an eminent professor, different Logos teams sometimes use different criteria to tag language resources.

What I am looking for:

Feedback from users who are REALLY COGNIZANT of these issues. Are you aware of some of the discrepancies when comparing what these different programs produce? Do you know -- for a fact (please no guesswork) -- what account for those discrepancies (or possibly, simply different approaches)? What does it mean for scholarly work reliance on Logos language resources (esp., morphologically tagged primary texts and associated functionalities)?

The purpose: if there is a problem with Logos tagging, what specific feedback can we give so that it can offer a better product for languages in particular.

What would be counter-productive: wasting everyone's time by going on a "defend Logos" campaign. This is not about criticizing Logos or coming to its defense. It's about asking whether there is a liability that can certainly be improved to make it a better academic product.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Francis

BTW, compare the following results:

(same count for all English Bibles with Logos morphology).

When one does a BWS and click on the root, all of the above results (that is, a number of English Bibles and 1 Hebrew text) will appear. Clearly the results are not consistent though I am sure there is a reason for it. The point however is this: if an English Bible is searchable by root, should it not have the same count as a Hebrew Bible?

David Knoll

https://community.logos.com/forums/t/35511.aspx

Bradley Grainger (Logos)

BTW, compare the following results:

Thanks for posting a specific example.

In this case, it appears that LEB is missing some roots. I've opened an inquiry about this.

Francis

Thanks, Bradley. Actually ALL English Bibles with Logos Morphology (NASB, ESV, NKJV, etc.) have the same, lower count, as compared to LHB.

John Fidel

I think to be comparable, you need to run searches on the original language texts and compare. You cannot even run a comparable original language search using an English text with the other two software programs. You can run a Strong's search.

With that said, I do appreciate you bringing these differences to Logos attention as the original language searches should be scholar grade as well.

I am not proficient in Hebrew, but would suspect that those would be the texts that show the most differences.

Chris Robbers

In this case, it appears that LEB is missing some roots. I've opened an inquiry about this.

This will be fixed in an upcoming update to the LEB reverse interlinear resource. Thanks for the report!

Fr Devin Roza

As Francis mentioned, it's not just the LEB. It's every single Bible that's not named LHB, whether it is in English or not, including, for example, LHI, Logos LXX, LXXALT, NRSV, etc., etc.

Vincent Setterholm

In this case, it appears that LEB is missing some roots. I've opened an inquiry about this.

This will be fixed in an upcoming update to the LEB reverse interlinear resource. Thanks for the report!

We actually have a significant update to LHB and all the resources that get their morph data from that source - LHI, the Reverse Interlinears, etc. - sitting in the wings. The last obstacle to getting it out the door is waiting for a new release of the 5.3 beta, as these resources won't be recognized by beta 3. At this point I don't know if we'll ship these resources immediately when the beta is released or if we'll just roll it into the planned 'massive update' scheduled for next week.

Speaking to the broader question of data accuracy: I'm proud of this pending update, but I'm sure perfection still eludes us. The single best way to report issues with the LHB morph/lemma/root data is to use the report typo feature directly on the LHB text so that the feedback ends up in one place, instead of scattered across all the RIs. I check the reporting on that resource regularly and appreciate feedback. Thanks for reporting this issue!

Vincent Setterholm

https://community.logos.com/forums/t/35511.aspx

David, we updated to the latest Westminster data almost a year ago (version 4.18, which you probably got for free if you already had the old 4.2) and teased apocopation out into a separate field in the structure of our morph codes so that there wouldn't be problems finding hits for words that were both apocopated and had another ending tag, like paragogic nun.

David Knoll

https://community.logos.com/forums/t/35511.aspx

David, we updated to the latest Westminster data almost a year ago (version 4.18, which you probably got for free if you already had the old 4.2) and teased apocopation out into a separate field in the structure of our morph codes so that there wouldn't be problems finding hits for words that were both apocopated and had another ending tag, like paragogic nun.

Hi Vincent,

The poster asked how Logos earned that reputation, and I gave him an example. Other software did not have such problems before 4.18. At the time one was unable to search the Qumran sectarian database for the verb כתב. For me, this is how Logos lost its credibility as a scholarly tool. I bought something else and mostly use Logos as an e-reader (which is why I didn't know you fixed that). I am not sure this is part of the past. I have repeatedly asked here what is going on with the Wolfgang Richter morphology. This was the main reason I invested in Logos in the past, but I got no reply. Logos promised the Richter Morphology before Logos 5 was out, when it was out Logos promised again, two years have passed and no word. Logos used to allow the scholar to make syntax searches in Eep Telstra's syntax module, then one day it was gone (Logos 4). How can a scholar rely on Logos? I am not saying this to cause damage to anyone. I am just saying that sadly the OP has a point, and you should listen.

BKMitchell

Here is dated, but information on issues that still apply to morphological tagging:

(Warring: the Bible Software programs mentioned below have evolved, and have a lot more morphological tagged texts than they did back in the 90's when this was written)

[quote]

Researchers who use these tools should be aware of how these potential pitfalls can affect the accuracy of their analysis.

The following discussion focuses on the Greek New Testament, but the principles are applicable to searching the Hebrew Bible and Septuagint.

Differences in the Underlying Biblical Texts

Different Morphologically Tagged Texts
As has been shown, there is a considerable variation in the tagging schemes used in Greek New Testament texts. The Friberg texts use a more functional classification method than other texts. Even the Friberg 2 text still has many functional and unusual classifications. The Gramcord and CCAT texts use largely formal classifications.

Unfortunately, except for Gramcord, the manuals for popular Bible-search programs rarely discuss the assumptions used in the classification of words. Yet it is essential that researchers understand the nature of the underlying machine-readable biblical text if their analysis of the text is to be meaningful.

The print edition of the Friberg 1 text has an appendix outlining the criteria used for the tags (Barbara and Timothy Friberg, eds., Analytical Greek New Testament, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981). Unfortunately there is no similar book explaining the classification philosophy of the revised Friberg text. In many instances TheWord deviates from the Friberg 1 tags, without documenting the differences. No program makes use of more than one of the Friberg multiple classifications of ambiguous words and no program documents the selection criteria...

Many tagged texts have some functional or unusual classifications of words which can produce unexpected search results.

In Gramcord, many foreign words such a hosanna are classified as interjections. However, foreign proper nouns are classified as nouns and parsed by function in context. By contrast, Bible Windows and Bible Works classify hosanna as a particle.

Conjunctions and particles are particularly difficult words to classify. A beginning user might miss many occurrences of kai if he only searches for the word as a conjunction. Since kai also functions as an adverb in some cases, most programs will sometimes classify it as an adverb. However, as the following chart shows, the classification choices in individual instances vary considerably:

Bible Windows was unable to report the total number of occurrences of kai, because it only allows 750 matches in a search. Since it is hard to predict how a program will classify the word in any given passage, the safest approach is to search for all possible classifications and manually eliminate invalid matches. The Gramcord manual documents how many times each word is classified as a conjunction, particle or adverb, which makes it easier to define searches that will find all occurrences of such words.

Since the Friberg text (Bible Works and TheWord) attempts to classify many words by function based on discourse analysis, some classifications may be surprising to users. Friberg 1 uses the category of "substantive adjective" to refer to adjectives which are used as nouns in context. For example, agathos ("good") is classified as a substantive adjective in Mt 5:45 ("he makes the sun shine on the evil and the good). This type of classification affects 4131 occurrences of 1068 words in 3009 verses! While adjectives can certainly function as substantives, the term "substantive adjective" is not a part of speech used by most Greek grammars. It would be easy for a user to accidentally miss many important occurrences of adjectives unless he searches both for "adjectives" and "substantive adjectives". The Friberg 2 text eliminates the substantive adjective classification, but it introduces other surprising functional classifications. For example, in most cases Friberg 2 classifies relative pronouns as adjectives, with an adjective subtype of "relative." It introduces a category of participial imperative (168 occurrences of 120 words in 135 verses) and (7813 occurrences of 1726 words in 4792 verses).

Functional classifications such as those frequently used in Friberg's text are more subjective than formal classifications. Their value depends largely on the accuracy of the classifier's interpretation of the text. While they appear to be objective raw data, in fact they contain the prior conclusions of another researcher, which tends to skew the search results to fit the classifier's own viewpoint.
Treatment of Classification Ambiguities
Even the strictest formal classification method must classify certain words by function in context, since the morphology of these words is inconclusive. While in most cases the meaning is clear in the context, in some instances the grammatical classification is subject to scholarly debate. For example, the gender of potamou could be either neuter or masculine. In Mt 6:13 the meaning is debated: Does the Lord's Prayer ask for deliverance from "evil" (neuter) or "the evil one" (masculine)? Since Bible Windows 2, Gramcord and Accordance classify potamou in Mt 6:13 as neuter, a search for masculine adjectives will not find the verse. By contrast, TheWord and Bible Works classify the word as masculine and do not allow the word to be found in a search for masculine adjectives! Only Bible Windows 3 acknowledges both possible parsings and allows the word to be found with either search.

Bible-search programs would be more useful if they marked such words as ambiguous and allowed searching on the multiple classifications. The print version of the Friberg text includes multiple classifications in many instances. However, at this time only Bible Windows 3 allows searching on Friberg's multiple classifications. Although Bible Works and TheWord both remove the multiple parsings in Friberg 1, the documentation does not explain the criteria used to make these choices.

Gramcord makes a good attempt at handling ambiguous classifications. In many cases, it tags words in multiple ways and flags the ambiguous classification in the resulting concordance. The documentation lists all ambiguous classifications which are used. However, even Gramcord could be improved in this area. For example, it does not include the ambiguous classification ofpotamou in Mt 6:13.

http://www.balboa-software.com/semcomp/scbible2.htm#VARIATIONS

Francis

I went to look up in the preface and intros on several morph-tagged texts and found this kind of things:

AFAT

Interested users can gain a fair knowledge of our policies and practices by consulting F. I. Andersen and A. D. Forbes, “Hebrew Grammar Visualised: I. Syntax,” ANES 40 (2003) 43-61. Full details of our policies and practices as regards the text and its representation by phrase markers are supplied in Biblical Hebrew Grammar Visualized, published by Eisenbrauns. Current information can be found at our website: andersen-forbes.org.

BHS 4.2

The information in this paragraph was drawn directly from Alan Groves, “Supplement to the Code Manual for the Michigan Old Testament” (last revised 7 June 1989). This document and further information can be found at the World Wide Web site of the Westminster Hebrew Institute at http://www.wts.edu/hebrew/whm.html.

I did not find (skimming quickly) something similar in Penner, Ken, and Michael S. Heiser. “Old Testament Greek Pseudepigrapha with Morphology.” Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2008.

Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts:

The text of the scrolls has been tagged using the Michigan-Westminster grammatical tagging scheme, the same system used in the Biblia Hebraica Westmonasteriensis, with some modifications to accomodate the fragmentary nature of some of the scrolls. Sentence breaks have been indicated wherever possible, so that searches of more than one line can be executed. These breaks are often approximate and subject to debate.

I don't really have the time to check more resources or explore the websites that are referred to. It is to be hoped that they do in fact answer the kind of questions we might have and that it does not require too much poking around in order to find these answers. I do think that a section on morphologies (characteristics, differences) would be a useful (and needed) addition to the help file.