Bug?: Lemmas in Reference

Dave Hooton

I'm a little confused by these deffintions

• “Lemmas in Reference” performs as previously, giving hits on where a lemma is quoted from a Bible reference in another resource such as a commentary.
• “Other Lemmas” provides results for lemmas which are discussed in a resource but not quoted directly from the original source material.

In a guide for Ex 20, I get

The first lemma is OK but the second lemma is quoted directly from Deut 5.8 and is not the form used in Ex 20:4.

The first lemma appears to be directly from Ex 20:4 whilst I agree the second is OK as the one from which the first is derived.

Rick Brannan (Logos)

Hi Dave.

What the "Other Lemmas" is listing is where word instances have deduced lemmas that are not in the passage range. It isn't a test of the surface form/inflection/whatever; it is a test of the associated (generated/deduced) lemma, and if that associated lemma (not surface form) is found within the existing passage.

So you're correct in your first example that it "is not the form used in Ex 20:4". But the test is if it terms are associated with the same generated/deduced lemma.

Might we be able to tweak it? Perhaps. But it gets wiggly pretty quickly, and lemma is the most solid ground for comparison at this point. Many times the actual lemma is being discussed, not the surface form. So to limit passage inclusion to surface form would preclude the discussions that actually use lemmas from being included in the "lemma in reference" section.

As I'm fond of saying, complex systems usually start as simple systems. If complex<-simple is viewed as a range, we're tending more to the simple side of it at present with this particular feature and dataset. Trying to work down to surface form would be a way to enhance this data in the future, but it would also imply a not insignificant effort in the analysis and plumbing.