Okay, I've done a reasonable job of identifying the Bible resources that have morphological coding. The next obvious step is to identify the patristics, pseudepigrapha, apocrypha, ancient manuscripts that, when coded for morphology, ought to have much of the same functionality as Bibles -- especially those that are Biblical for some group.
So here is what I do (try it along with me to get frustrated):
- Make a collection of all resources excluding type:Bible-- I've already reviewed Bibles I believe
- Because of the Migne Patristic volumes, assume that Greek will be the predominate language for any coding, and that the coding will most likely be the Logos Greek Morphology scheme
- Because one may be looking for anything from small fragments to full multi-volume works, choose to search for nouns as the thing most likely to be present even in small fragments
- Run search - get excited as you have identified 93 resources to check. And the first one implies you've identified exactly what you want to find: Birkbeck, W. J., and G. R. Woodward, eds. The Acáthist Hymn of the Holy Orthodox Eastern Church: Greek Text. London; New York; Bombay; Calcutta; Madras: Longmans, Green and Co., 1917.has morphological coding.
- Note that you have 5,843,058 results in 135,450 verses in 93 resources. And that the next entry is the Aeneid ... never mind that it is in Latin it is, in fact, coded for morphology and therefore a resource you are interested in.
- Now try to find the 3rd resource ... assuming you don't fall asleep getting from page 1 to page 2 ... it doesn't matter how you navigate nearly 6 million entries just doesn't work very well. Which is very annoying when what I really want is 93 entries - the resources unexpanded. (Yes, I've entered a suggestion for that).
- So the QUESTION IS: How does FL expect me to identify which patristic, pseudepigrapha, apocrypha ... sources are most apt to be of use to me for morphological considerations? How am I supposed to glean the information?
