Greek Lemma Questions

Page 2 of 4 (76 items) < Previous 1 2 3 4 Next >
This post has 75 Replies | 1 Follower

Posts 26014
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, May 27 2013 1:17 AM

Lee:
I suppose products like BW9 should be congratulated for bowing to neophytes.

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.

Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Posts 2451
Lee | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, May 27 2013 3:19 AM

MJ. Smith:

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.

Posts 26014
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, May 27 2013 1:10 PM

Lee, looking back through this thread I don't understand why we got off to such a bad start and devolved from there. However, I certainly don't want to get into a fight on the forums with you. I hope my points are clear and helpful to the other readers of the thread - they, like you, are free tree to agree or disagree. But I am bowing out unless asked specific additional questions.

Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Posts 13127
Forum MVP
Mark Barnes | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, May 27 2013 1:33 PM

MJ. Smith:
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:

Lee:
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.

Posts 1602
Deacon Steve | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, May 27 2013 1:35 PM

I'm a newbie in language ... by any definition.  Trying to follow the discussion.  Had to Google "facetiousness" (sorry) and am lost on the reply.  BW9?  Not sure I am understanding the user/fan difference regarding Logos.  Can you elaborate?  Thanks.

Posts 1602
Deacon Steve | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, May 27 2013 1:38 PM

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

Posts 15805
Forum MVP
Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :) | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, May 27 2013 1:43 PM

Mark Hoffman:
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.

Noticed nouns, adjectives, and adverbs have "--" for verb tense.

Mark Hoffman:
I checked οραω, and this lemma is used for some tenses and ειδον is used for others. Even worse, ειδον is given as the lemma for Aorist actives, but οραω is the lemma for Aorist passives... unless the word has a prepositional prefix, in which case οραω is used for Aorist actives.

Analysis of Logos 5 root:οραω morph search shows four prepositional prefixes that have Aorist active usage:

Mark Hoffman:
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.

The NA27 w/ Critical Apparatus or another apparatus, e.g. => http://www.logos.com/product/8486/the-greek-new-testament-sbl-edition can be linked to a Greek edition with root tagging:

Keep Smiling Smile

Posts 9945
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, May 27 2013 2:22 PM

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus:

Mark Hoffman:
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>

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

Posts 2451
Lee | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, May 27 2013 4:02 PM

Mark Hoffman:
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.

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :):

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.

Noticed nouns, adjectives, and adverbs have "--" for verb tense.

Analysis of Logos 5 root:οραω morph search shows four prepositional prefixes that have Aorist active usage:

 

Thanks, both. That's useful to know. Of course, how 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.

 

 

Posts 9945
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, May 27 2013 4:47 PM

Lee:

Mark Hoffman:
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.

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

Posts 2451
Lee | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, May 27 2013 6:04 PM

George Somsel:

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.

 

Posts 9945
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, May 27 2013 6:13 PM

Lee:

George Somsel:

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.  Big Smile

It is documented.  Look at your morph search page.

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

Posts 2451
Lee | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, May 27 2013 6:21 PM

George Somsel:

It is documented.  Look at your morph search page.

I have a confession to make. I find the Logos documentation rather confusing. Perhaps I am a neophyte, but I simply could not find this information. I assume the original poster did not find it either.

Going off topic a bit:
  [rant] Logos documentation could do with a revamp [/rant]

 

Posts 15805
Forum MVP
Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :) | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, May 27 2013 8:24 PM

Lee:

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?

A search for lemma:X finds X in lemma, but does not find other cognate forms.

A root:X search finds X in root.  More than one lemma can have the same root.

Converting a morph search for a lemma to a Bible search shows lemma being searched in bible content:

([field bible, content] <lemma = lbs/el/μαρτυρέω>)

Likewise converting a morph search for a root to a Bible search shows root being searched in bible content:

([field bible, content] <root = lbs/el/μαρτυς>)

Thankful for Logos 5 root search.

Keep Smiling Smile 

Posts 2451
Lee | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, May 27 2013 10:23 PM

Thanks for that clarification. For me, the commands that you have listed are not the most user friendly, and remind me too much of SQL queries. One day, when I really need to, I will sit down and try to master the searches in Logos. Meanwhile, I have other means at my disposal, as I'm sure other users have too.

Again, I think that "lemma" should include suppletive forms, while "root" (or call it "stem" if you will) should only yield that particular morphology.

In linguistics, the notion lexeme has been introduced for an abstract entity which represents an expression with a certain lexical meaning and which is realised, depending on the grammatical context, by one of the word forms. For these abstract entities, representatives are determined by convention. Theoretically, numbers or any other kind of labels could be used. For practical reasons, however, one of the word forms is selected. These word forms are called lemmas; they are used as labels of the lexemes in dictionaries and for other forms of metacommunication. Lemmatisation is relatively unproblematic, at least in principle, as long as word forms are constructed by affixation or allomorphs including suppletion. Problems arise mainly in cases of fusions, e.g. of prepositions with determiners (including portmanteau morphemes such as French au for à le), with clitics and with all kinds of discontinuous morphemes, etc. Here, decisions must be made on the basis of some criteria, which then should be followed consequently. The same is true of a number of function words such as pronouns. The word forms I, me, my, he, him, his can be counted separately as different words or lemmatised into 4, 2, or even 1 lemma depending on how narrow the individual concept of a lexeme is. From the most systematic point of view, also we, us, our and all the other forms for different persons, cases, and numbers should be included into the lemma, in the same way as the different forms of the nouns and verbs are counted as a single lemma, ignoring differences in case, number, gender, tense etc. (cf. go, goes, going, went, gone) even if they are formed by suppletion. One has to decide which of the categories that a word form expresses are considered lexical ones and which grammatical. --  Popescu, Word Frequency Studies (2009), p. 6


From me, a user, not a fan. Not an expert, but not exactly a neophyte either... Zip it!

Posts 26014
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, May 27 2013 11:08 PM

MJ. Smith:
To enter a single root and gets results for multiple roots would be confusing and misleading. Perhaps what should be suggested is that the lemma search serve for the multi-root inflection.

Lee:
Again, I think that "lemma" should include suppletive forms, while "root" (or call it "stem" if you will) should only yield that particular morphology.

We agree.

Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Posts 15805
Forum MVP
Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :) | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, May 27 2013 11:45 PM

Wonder if lemma search for a defective verb should include suppletive forms ?

Noticed Logos User Voice => http://logos.uservoice.com/forums/42823-logos-bible-software-5 does not have a defective/suppletive verb search suggestion.

Keep Smiling Smile

Posts 2451
Lee | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, May 27 2013 11:56 PM

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.

Posts 9945
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, May 28 2013 12:05 AM

Lee:
Someone at Logos should read this, and someone responsible and smart enough should make changes that (1) are in accordance with generally accepted principles;

Is that GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Practices)?  Wink

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

Posts 2451
Lee | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, May 28 2013 12:09 AM

Tongue Tied

Page 2 of 4 (76 items) < Previous 1 2 3 4 Next > | RSS