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
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?
I entered h:hesed and selected the entry.
And when I do that I get this
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).
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.
er
