Various questions re: Semantic domains

MJ. Smith

1. I believe that Louw-Nida applies only to Greek. Why does the option exist on the pick list when I am in the OT? I would expect it to be available but greyed out or otherwise marked n/a.
2. I believe that Swanson covers Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Why is it not an option in the interlinear especially since LN has incomplete coverage.
3. Is volume 5 of New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis a semantic domain analysis?
4. Are there other semantic domain options in Logos besides Biblical sense, Louw-Nida, and Swanson?

HJ. van der Wal

MJ. Smith said:

4. Are there other semantic domain options in Logos besides Biblical sense, Louw-Nida, and Swanson?

No, these are the only semantic domain options available in Logos.

The Bible Sense Lexicon has been created to fill the need for an Old Testament equivalent to Louw-Nida: https://community.logos.com/forums/p/121507/795944.aspx#795944 

MJ. Smith said:

3. Is volume 5 of New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis a semantic domain analysis?

It's an index of semantic fields:

Dave Hooton

MJ. Smith said:

I believe that Louw-Nida applies only to Greek. Why does the option exist on the pick list when I am in the OT? I would expect it to be available but greyed out or otherwise marked n/a.

Which pick list? Which resource?

The DBL Hebrew & DBL Aramaic lexicons use LN numbers as explained by the Author:

"First, the Louw Nida domain numbers (LN) for the Hebrew domains are used primarily as an organizational principle to keep track of the tens of thousands of meanings of OT lexemes. It was a matrix or “hook” upon which to hang the thousands of different meanings of the Hebrew lexemes."

But I'm not aware of an OT bible that assigns LN numbers to lemmas.

MJ. Smith said:

I believe that Swanson covers Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Why is it not an option in the interlinear especially since LN has incomplete coverage.

Are you referring to Swanson's morphology or Swanson's use of LN numbers in his DBL lexicons? What interlinear?

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1069230#Comment_1069230

Dave Hooton said:

Which pick list?

Interlinear pick lists 

Dave Hooton said:

Which resource?

I most often use NRSV but it is true for any resource with RI

Dave Hooton said:

Are you referring to Swanson's morphology or Swanson's use of LN numbers in his DBL lexicons? What interlinear?

Use of LN numbers ... Again, I most often test with NRSV because it is used across the Protestant/ACELO divide and uses the ecumenical canon.

ACELO = Anglican-Catholic-Eastern Orthodox-Lutheran-Oriental Orthodox

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1069235#Comment_1069235

MJ. Smith said:

Dave Hooton said:

Which pick list?

Interlinear pick lists 

Dave Hooton said:

Which resource?

I most often use NRSV but it is true for any resource with RI

I thought it was under Inline Reverse Interlinear for completeness, and would not affect the OT. But it is badly implemented as an extra (blank) row is created in the OT. The OT pick list for the reverse interlinear ribbon does not include LN.

MJ. Smith said:

Dave Hooton said:

Are you referring to Swanson's morphology or Swanson's use of LN numbers in his DBL lexicons? What interlinear?

Use of LN numbers ... Again, I most often test with NRSV

If your are asking why LN numbers are not included in the Interlinear (along with Strong's numbers, etc.) for Hebrew and Aramaic, it is primarily because LN Semantic Domains were never designed for use outside the NT. Swanson extended their use for convenience in his lexicons, but a given meaning in the OT is covered by a broad range of sub-domains instead of a discrete sub-domain.