Why doesn't Logos list the lemma with a homograph number? There are two different definitions in BDB. So, I'm confused as to why this isn't listed with a homograph number.
Bob
From the NET Bible
Thanks Dave. if I understand correctly this is a homograph issue. I was just curious as to why logos did not list a homograph number in the reverse inter linear. Any thoughts on that?
From running a Bible Word Study on the root, it does not appear to be a case of two lemma with the same form (a homograph) in the underlying Lexham lemma scheme. Different dictionaries have differing rules for determining lemmas so it is not uncommon to have numbers homographs in one dictionary but not another.
if I understand correctly this is a homograph issue
I believe it would be more accurate to say that it might be. Even BDB which you reference lists this option as "dubious/doubtful."
Because of the tentative nature of this understanding, I'm not at all surprised that it's not listed as an alternative in the RI.
