Curious about Design Goals for Reverse Interlinears

Yes. Saw it right after I posted this [:D].

His response there is helpful to explain the alignment of the article to the ESV and might indicate that it is in fact a design goal for the Reverse Interlinears to yield varying results from morphological results.

Also, perhaps I am right that the difference between the NASB and ESV is an error to be corrected.

I would still find it helpful to better understand the design goals.

Rick Brannan said:

If you want to search an original language text sensitive to proximity/word order, then you should search the original language text. If you want to mix in English, you should use an interlinear and not a reverse interlinear *if* word order of the original language is a necessary part of your query.

Thank you, Rick, for your response.

You have helped me better understand some of the constraints under which you are working with the Reverse Interlinears.

I appreciate the potential of having access to so many various resources. Hence my previous struggle with whether or not there might be advantages that I am not seeing with Reverse Interlinears.

A few friendly, humble suggestions/questions . . .

Would it be better to limit morphological searches to morphologically tagged texts?

Would it not be more user friendly to exclude the Reverse Interlinears as an option for morphological searching or at least return some sort of disclaimer when one attempts a search that we know will produce inaccurate results based on the limitations (or design) of the resource?

Is the burden on the user to learn enough about the particularities of various resources to know whether or not they should use it for a particular search?

Or should it be expected behavior that the search tool will help a user find the best tool for the most accurate results?

For example, when proximity operators are used in a morphological search of Reverse Interlinears, could the search tool recommend searching the best resource instead of just returning zero results with no explanation?

I am very supportive of Logos's emphasis on bringing the ability to interact with the original languages to those who have not had formal training but this is one area where I am concerned that there are a lot of opportunities for misunderstandings.

Please take my suggestions in the spirit of constructive criticism from someone who appreciates all you are doing.

Dave Hooton said:

From a user perspective I would not like any type of search to be restricted to certain resources  eg. (coming ANDEQUALS <lbs-morph+el ~ VP??????>) produces Rev 3.10 in ESV. The goal of this search would be unique to a translation such as the RI's and has no bearing on accuracy compared to a Greek text (where one would use a Greek lemma rather than an English word).

And yet a morphological search for articular occurrences of peirasmos in the ESV does not produce an accurate result.
That such an arcane search argument is required to get a desired result really only strengthens my concern that this is not a user friendly approach.

One should expect the software to produce the results that one would expect from the parameters of the search.

Of course this does not address the problem of proximity searches. The results of many proximity searches using reverse interlinears can not be trusted (per Rick's explanation above). My question is simply . . . then why allow them? They only have the potential to mislead.

Dave Hooton said:

Should the software also restrict or warn users of the limitations of a Strong's number search?

No, because there is nothing in the software that has the potential to mislead one into thinking that they should expect more from search based on Strong numbers than it is able to deliver.
The problem with the Morph Search Tool allowing you to search a Reverse Interlinear is that it does not yield the results you would expect because of their inherent limitations as a tool for morphological searching. 

Allowing morphological searches on resources that will surely produce less than accurate results is less than helpful. It will be confusing to new users. It increases the learning curve for the software. It leaves the software wide open for criticism by competitors concerning its reliability.

I think the better approach would be to limit morphological searching to morphologically tagged texts where the results are known to be accurate. Reverse Interlinears could then be accessed from the Aligned view of the search results if one chooses.

Kevin,

I am supportive of Logos's goals of using their tools helping people learn Greek and Hebrew.

That is why I am concerned that the potential confusion related to a morphological search of a Reverse Interlinear presents an unnecessary hurdle.

Dave,

We agree on the proper use of IR's. You and I are knowledgeable enough to use the tools as they are. I've got an undergraduate degree in Greek, a MDiv, and am completing a PhD in New Testament Studies. I am also somewhat savvy with fairly high level computing. I recognize your abilities because I have learned from you on this forum several times.

My concern with this issue is for what I perceive to potentially confusing to those who are not as strong in one of those skill sets.
I'm just trying to say that the software could do more to alleviate the acknowledged problems related to morph searching RIs.

Can we agree on that?

Dave Hooton said:

Russ Quinn said:

When the following straightforward query does not yield accurate results, it should not be left to the user to have to discover the ins and outs of how a reverse interlinear is constructed to understand why. 

The main reason can readily be demonstrated by reference to the numbers against ancient words indicating that they are not in the same order as the original text. This is just a matter of education (and the same search can be used in a Greek/Hebrew bible!).

You are right again, my friend. These things can be demonstrated. My question is should a user be required to know this before they can execute a successful morphological search? What would prompt an unenlightened user to seek to discover this knowledge? Isn't more probable that they would just unknowingly accept the wrong results?

Dave,

I have to confess I am having some difficulty knowing quite how to respond to your comments. 

In the past I have found your posts to be very helpful but I am not following your train of thought. 

Dave Hooton said:

Any software intervention would be difficult to justify and likely have unintended side effects. 

I'm not sure how to respond to such a broad statement concerning unspecified software solutions. You are obviously more knowledgeable about all possible solutions than I am able to discuss.

Dave Hooton said:

Any software warning would create as much confusion as you are trying to avoid.

Again a pretty broad statement about unspecified solutions. I find it almost impossible to interact with these types of assertions in an intelligible way. However, I find it difficult to believe that a simple warning accompanying proximity searches of the ESV Reverse Interlinear that encourages a more appropriate search would create more confusion than wrong results with no explanation.

Dave Hooton said:

In the 4+ years since the NT Reverse Interlinears were made available in v3 I cannot recall any user having a significant issue about their use vs. the Greek bible. 

Kevin Becker said:

This is a fascinating discussion. I think morph searches in the reverse interlinears are generally Ok when looking for a single word ie. a specific lemma (with or without mophology restrictions). It's when you start looking for combinations of features, often by using proximity that these searches break down. What if for more complex searches on an interlinear (constructed with a Boolean operator or WITHIN etc and don't reference the surface text) generate a link above the results that would say Run this search in XXXXX where XXXXX would be the an original language text with the morphology scheme equivalent to the reverse interlinear. If we really wanted to closely attend to Russ' concerns the program could automatically run the second search in the background and compare the number of hits and if they differ greatly give a stronger worded link Get Better results by running this search in XXXXX. Then the user of this tool will be given the chance to learn about the limitations of morph searches in the reverse interlinears and what searches they can do well and what ones are best left to the primary texts.

Thanks, Kevin for a helpful summary of the issues and an equally helpful proposal.

Something like that would certainly reduce the possibility for confusion as well as create learning opportunities for less experienced users.

Dave Hooton said:

I have treated your proposal with considerable respect so I am quite dismayed to read that my responses could be summarised as "go to the forum" and conclude that I am "comfortable" with that.

I trust that our discussion has been beneficial to others and that it may provoke alternative responses. It has been a difficult topic for me, as I haven't been entirely satisfied with the clarity of my responses. So please don't think it has been a personal issue. I probably go away slightly dismayed with myself

Dave,

There is no need for you to feel dismay from my perspective, my brother. Your willingness to help those who do come to the forums with difficult questions certainly outweighs any difficulties we may have had communicating on this issue. Those difficulties are surely due as much to my lack of clarity in attempting to express my concerns.

The limitations of communicating in a forum rival the limitations of executing morphological searches in reverse interlinears. [:)]

I wonder sometimes if extended conversations like these might be better served in some other format more suited to discerning tone when disagreeing. Perhaps a video chat or something like that where a few of us could really talk through things like this and then offer a consensus suggestion? 

It is clear (to me anyway) that you are one of the most knowledgeable resources on the forum when it comes to search syntax.
I look forward to future interaction with you on topics where we will probably again have different perspectives. 
I also know that I will again be in need of your expertise.