RESOLVED? BUG: Inconsistent labeling or intended distinction?

MJ. Smith

What is the intended difference between English gloss and English lexical value in this context? or should they have a shared label? Note that the gloss does not meet my expectation of a gloss but is more the lexical value ... but ...

MJ. Smith

Bumper

Myke Harbuck

Not sure if it helps....Blog posts from 2007-2008:

Why are there two English entries for each word? The Lexham Greek-English Interlinear Septuagint, takes advantage of its digital environment to offer multiple layers of English glosses that reflect the complexity of the Greek language structure. Like the other Lexham interlinears (Hebrew-English Bible and Greek-English NT) there are two levels of interlinear translation. The first is the English Lexical Value, which is a gloss of the lexical or dictionary form of the word. The second is the English Literal Translation, a contextually sensitive gloss of the inflected form of the word. The difference in these glosses is subtle, but powerful. The first gloss answers the question, “What does this word mean?” The second gloss answers the question, “What does this word mean here?”
The English Literal Translation line also includes a word order number, where necessary, to allow the reader to re-assemble the text in an order more friendly to English readers. The below screen capture, with only the Manuscript and English Literal Translation lines shows how helpful this can be:

Two Levels of Glossing: Each Greek word has a simple, context-free gloss (i.e., the "Lexical value," what you’d see in a lexicon) and a context-sensitive gloss (or "English Literal Translation").

Looks like Logos had at one time tried to differentiate between types of glosses and then decided to go the simpler route with English Gloss, especially since there would be a good bit of subjectivity in the dichotomization process.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1075531#Comment_1075531

Thanks Myke, that partially answers my question