Causing me confusion - possible bug
I run a BWS on lemma 1. ... I pick and example, navigate to the Bible and am suddenly on lemma 2 ... as 1. nnn and 2. nnn distinguish between lemmas with the same spelling what happened here?
er
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
Comments
-
Your BWS looks very similar - identical apart from the number - to what I get when I run it on lemma 2
How did you generate the BWS?
0 -
I entered h:hesed and selected the entry.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
0
-
MJ. Smith said:
I entered h:hesed and selected the entry.
It all depends on the entry you select.
I'm guessing you picked an entry from a non-Logos morphology. The lemma you picked was mapped to the corresponding Logos lemma(s) so that the Translation graph could be created (because reverse interlinears, which power the Translation ring, are only based on Logos morph). These mappings are only approximations (due to the nature of different morphological analyses), so you may get a mix of Logos lemmas that correspond to the lemma you actually ran the BWS on.
I highly recommend starting the BWS from a Bible. Not only are you guaranteed to get the right morphological analysis, the BWS will use the exact word you started with to ensure that the best lexicon entries are displayed in the Lemma section (some results are context-sensitive).
0 -
I'm guessing you picked an entry from a non-Logos morphology.
That makes sense. However, to me it also implies a need to be able to distinguish Logos morphology lemmas.
I highly recommend starting the BWS from a Bible.
Ouch! I don't like the implied work flow as I am usually in a commentary or monograph when I find I have a need to run a BWS. I understand why you make the recommendation but its an odd sleight of hand between what appears to be the functionality and what the actual functionality is. It implies even more strongly the need to be able to differentiate among the lemmas of different morphologies. I am not saying that the functionality of the BWS is "wrong" in any sense ... I am saying that we are able to run one without knowing what we asked for and therefore we will make incorrect assumptions about our results.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
To expand on what "Logos lemma" means: If your topmost original language resource is not LHB or one of the reverse interlinears, you will be autocompleting against the lexical analysis in that resource, which implies a possibly different division and enumeration of homographs than is present in the reverse interlinears, which (mostly? all?) use LHB.
For illustration, here are the results I get in BWS autocompletion when different Hebrew Bibles are prioritized into the top priority slot.
Prioritizing NRSV gives the same results as LHB.
In each case there's only one analysis being completed against, so each drop-down represents an internally consistent and complete lexical scheme, but one that is potentially very different from the others. (A longstanding and well-documented issue in Hebrew lexicography. [:)]) When comparing two different lemmatization schemes, the homograph numbers aren't a good guide to what exact range of meaning the homograph is supposed to cover. They'll only match across schemes occasionally and coincidentally. The English gloss is your (imperfect but best available) guide for comparing across schemes.
We have future plans to indicate the morph scheme in the item text in the autocompleter.
0
