In BWS, the Greek Words section has glosses on the words, but the Hebrew Words section doesn't. Is that a bug or just inconsistent design, or am I doing something wrong? I'd like to see the glosses on the Hebrew words, too.
It seems to be an inconsistency as a gloss is available when you hover over a sector and look at the new translation ring.
OK, Logos, please fix this inconsistent design flaw. I've changed the title of this thread accordingly.
Incidentally, it doesn't seem to have anything to do with whether there was room to display the gloss in the Hebrew ring. I tried it with a much simpler example, where the words were more spaced out, and there was still no gloss.
Open your NA27 (logos morph) and hover over any word. The popup at the bottom will have a gloss at the end. Look at your BHS (4.2) and you'll notice that the popup does not contain a gloss. It's been this way a long time and I would bet that the difference in tagging between these two sources. However, the Andersen-Forbes BHS does have glosses.... don't know why they wouldn't grab the gloss from there given that the Hebrew tagging in the RIs are A-F.
Perhaps they did it this way for people who still have the old 4.2 can still use the tool... (can you tell I'm guessing? [:D])
Open your NA27 (logos morph) and hover over any word. The popup at the bottom will have a gloss at the end. Look at your BHS (4.2) and you'll notice that the popup does not contain a gloss. It's been this way a long time and I would bet that the difference in tagging between these two sources. However, the Andersen-Forbes BHS does have glosses.... don't know why they wouldn't grab the gloss from there given that the Hebrew tagging in the RIs are A-F. Perhaps they did it this way for people who still have the old 4.2 can still use the tool... (can you tell I'm guessing? )
Perhaps they did it this way for people who still have the old 4.2 can still use the tool... (can you tell I'm guessing? )
OK, that explanation makes sense, but it's a lame excuse for them not to provide a gloss since they could have used A-F. That goes for the popup too, I suppose.
OK, that explanation makes sense, but it's a lame excuse for them not to provide a gloss since they could have used A-F.
Perhaps they did it this way for people who still have the old 4.2 can still use the tool... (can you tell I'm guessing?
Yes!
The translation is undoubtedly based on the ESV RI. The total number (151) of occurrences of dark/darkness (all word forms) comes from the ESV.
I just wonder why BWS doesn't allow "darkness" as an input, suggesting "dark" instead.
