Greek Lemma Questions

This is a case where before Koine Greek (the Greek of the New Testament) there were multiple words that conveyed "to say." However, as time passed people started only using lego in only the present and the imperfect and eipen for other tenses. I'm sure there is a list somewhere of where all this happens. However, pay attention to the entry in BDAG. It will alert you when a word is only used in certain tenses and another word in other tenses.

Kevin Becker said:

This is a case where before Koine Greek (the Greek of the New Testament) there were multiple words that conveyed "to say." However, as time passed people started only using lego in only the present and the imperfect and eipen for other tenses. I'm sure there is a list somewhere of where all this happens. However, pay attention to the entry in BDAG. It will alert you when a word is only used in certain tenses and another word in other tenses.

Thanks for pointing this out Kevin.

X is used for … in the present but Y is used for the Aorist except when … unless …

The only thing to do is to learn the forms.  It's comparable to some English words such as "Go, went, gone, going."  The tendency is that the more frequently used words develop more of these forms which don't follow the rules.

Mark Hoffman said:

I agree with you, Lee, though I can see why Logos does this if they are just following BDAG. That said, I'm guessing that a lot of people don't know about this when conducting a search.

I'm still trying to find if there are any other instances than λεγω and οραω where the suppletive forms where this is the case. If it's just those two, then I can deal with it, but if there are a bunch of them that I don't know about, then it leaves me wondering about the validity of my searches...

Yes, there are other words.  I think immediately of φέρω (οἴσω, ἐνεγκα), but I really was thinking of the Latin cognate fero which has the principle parts

fero, ferre, tuli, latus

This is a phenomenon which appears in most languages as I attempted to indicate previously.  The most commonly used words are the ones which have unusual forms.  It is best to simply learn the forms.

Let's take a step back and think through this...

• Who expects the hits to be agglomerated, and why?
• Who expects the hits to only register that particular root, and why?
• And, how do other similar applications treat this?
• And, why not show the hits and separate the results by root, instead of just dropping them silently? Why not alert the user to different roots and give an option to go either way?

If Logos gives users a non-intuitive feature, so be it. A few users might be sharp enough to spot a disparity in counts, but most wouldn't. As for me, I'm a user, not a fan. Anytime I hear somebody take the position "Logos is fine" as if by default, I check out. Thanks.

Before I check out, let me demur at "do you support the neophyte in the language or one who is competent"?

Users of other power applications, neophytes? One who wants the search to be agglomerated, neophyte?

Great logic there. Checking out. See you.

Call in the hound. I don't care. Use symbolic logic and linguistics. I'm underwhelmed.

To me, it's obvious where the fallacy and facetiousness begin. I suppose products like BW9 should be congratulated for bowing to neophytes.

Logos can stay where it is. Ignore user suggestions, I don't care. I'm a user, not a fan.

MJ. Smith said:

I have never used BW9 and don't know how it works. I stated the principle that I would use to measure all language software - Bible or otherwise. I stand by that principle. Accuracy and precision are qualities I value.

Since you are still set in your internal system of accuracy and precision...

Search for lemma:X only for that particular stem forms = competent / described by current experts.

Search for lemma:X yields all stem forms = for neophytes.

Fallacious. And, yes, I've done my readings.

MJ. Smith said:

Lee, looking back through this thread I don't understand why we got off to such a bad start and devolved from there.

I think in fairness to Lee, the comment below could have easily been misinterpreted to suggest that you thought he wasn't competent. I'm sure that's not what you meant, but it could have been taken that way.

MJ. Smith said:

Lee said:

there's no practical sense in treating them apart in searches, and it could cause a whole lot of grief.

Combining them could cause a whole lot of grief to those who expect them to be separate. It's a common problem in designing language tools - do you support the neophyte in the language or one who is competent? One often can't do both.

Disregard my reply.  I see that MJ and Mark replied already.  I'll try to figure it out on my own.

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus said:

Mark Hoffman said:

I was using the NA27 with Critical Apparatus. I wanted to find all the instances in Mark where λεγω was used. I right click on λεγων in 1:7, choose the lemma λεγω, and search on the resource and reset my limits. I discovered, however, that I did not get any hits except for Present and Imperfect tense. Ah ha! It turns out that Aorist, Perfect, Pluperfect, and Future forms are all related to the lemma ειπον, not λεγω.

Logos 5 can search for lemma and root.  Analysis of lemma search shows present and imperfect tenses.  Analysis of root search includes other verb tenses.

Mark, I think this solves your problem (and it's available in the plain Jane NA27 version too).  What you need to do is to enter "root:" followed by the lemma you're searching.  You will need to use the down arrow to set the selection.  E.g. "root:λέγω" <down arrow to λέγω> <enter>

Lee said:

Mark Hoffman said:

The one work around is to use a version which allows for a "root" search (which is not available with NA27 w/ Critical Apparatus), but then you are going to go a lot of extra hits.

Thanks, both. That's useful to know. Of course, why a search for root:X would yield suppletive forms whereas a search for lemma:X does not, strikes me as counter-intuitive. For a distinction that is as fine and counter-intuitive as this, I think it needs to be rationalized and clearly documented.

 

I can't speak regarding the NA27 w/ Critical Apparatus since I don't have the critical apparatus version, but it is possible with the morphologically tagged Plain Jane model.  It only makes sense that a search for lemma:x would not produce hits for suppletive forms since you simply are not asking for them whereas you are with the search root:x.  Ask and you shall receive—don't ask and you won't receive.

Lee said:

George Somsel said:

I can't speak regarding the NA27 w/ Critical Apparatus since I don't have the critical apparatus version, but it is possible with the morphologically tagged Plain Jane model.  It only makes sense that a search for lemma:x would not produce hits for suppletive forms since you simply are not asking for them whereas you are with the search root:x.  Ask and you shall receive—don't ask and you won't receive.

Not to put too fine a point on this, but, what's the difference between lemma and root? I suspect most users don't have an answer.

If there's a difference (and there is) why would lemma:X drop suppletive forms, whereas root:X includes those forms?

I don't know about you, George, but I find it counter-intuitive. If I could design it from scratch, I'd actually do it in the reverse.

But since the feature is there, great. Let Logos put it out there, explain it and document it, so that users won't have to chase down this rabbit trail again.

 

Sometimes I don't know about me either.  [:D]

It is documented.  Look at your morph search page.

A user searches for a verb. He does not know whether it is defective or not. Most, I suspect, do not even care. Most are not etymologically attuned. Exegetically and textually, there is no difference.

I just wanted to contribute to a thread headed "Greek Lemma Questions" in which a user wonders about a surprising search result. I share some of his confusion, because the documentation is unclear and the usages are not in accordance with generally accepted principles.

I don't see a point in launching a "uservoice" suggestion. Someone at Logos should read this, and someone responsible and smart enough should make changes that (1) are in accordance with generally accepted principles; and (2) make for smooth, effective use of the program.

[:S]

To fgh:

I think you want to add more light, but actually I am confused even more. I thought the context was entering search commands using the syntax lemma:X (I seem to recall that this field is added by the Logos engine by default, but I could be wrong).

I am so puzzled by this discussion!

As a user, this is what I need: clarity of design, conformity with standards. I hope something will be done in that regard.

Mark Barnes said:

Part of the issue here is that there are no standards. Different software packages will try and meet their customers needs in different ways. Most Greek scholars will consider λεγω and ειπον to be different lemmas. Roots are not an answer, because roots in Logos tend to be fairly broad. On both these issues, Logos' implementation is perfectly acceptable, even if it's not exactly what you want. And if it was exactly what you want, it would upset plenty of other people...

I would beg to differ with almost all of the above. Anyway, I recognize that the specifics of what I want are not important, if I am just a tiny minority. Just sayin'. [H]

Mark Hoffman said:

To summarize...

• Logos has chosen to follow BDAG in categorizing "lemmas." That is a perfectly reasonable choice
• It does create some problems if one has learned a bunch of second aorists and does a search for a word like λεγω for which BDAG associates the suppletive form with a different lemma. (BTW, I'm thinking that this issue is only possibly an issue with verbs with second aorists.)
• I think there are two solutions we have identified:
  1. Simply do "root" searches instead of "lemma" searches
     • The problem with this is that you are going to get a lot of words you may not have wanted
     • The good thing about this is that a "root" search is really an incredible and powerful tool

  2. Do an OR search with multiple lemmas (lemma:λεγω OR lemma:ειπον )

     • This would be a preferred way to get the hits one was probably trying to get, but you have to know that there is a suppletive form for the verb and know what it is.

     • What is needed, then, is a list of verbs for which BDAG designates the second aorists as suppletive forms. So far, the only ones I've found are λεγω and οραω. Ok, I can live with that, but I'd like to be certain when I do a search that I am getting what I want.

• So, maybe it can go in this thread or someone can add it on the Logos Wiki, but let's start a list of verbs w/ suppletive forms as designated by BDAG.

I'll start the list:

• λεγω    ειπον

• οραω    ειδον

You can use the same morphological tags in a root search as in a lemma search in order to narrow down the forms presented. 

Off the top of my head ἔρχομαι  ἧλθον

Mark Hoffman said:

To summarize...

• Logos has chosen to follow BDAG in categorizing "lemmas." That is a perfectly reasonable choice.

A remarkably intuitive and clean schema. Following BDAG's lemmatization, except in the case of stub entries. Yes, I'll commit that to memory. Thank goodness I have my trusty Logos BDAG.

This schema works so well, we should perhaps recommend it to some other software makers and databank administrators, who may not have considered the tremendous advantages it offers.