Why I don't use Bible Word Study - an appeal for votes on suggestions

MJ. Smith

In graduate school my primary advisor was a philologist trained in Europe. That obviously affects the language skills I bring to Bible study and Logos as does the fact that many of my post-16th century commentaries and monographs are heavily indebted to philology. Therefore, I am disappointed that the BWS does not contain more philological data. (Vote at Bible Word Study: philological word level data | Faithlife)

• the etymology of the word from lexicons especially those reflecting the etymology throughout a linguistic family e.g. PIE (yes, etymologies can be abused but don't throw the baby out with the bath water.)
• a decomposition of a word into the parts composing it (prefix, suffix, affix, compound ...)
• derivatives of the word
• a list of cognate words in related languages
• lexical units larger than a single word including the word (phrases is a bit of this) Vote at: Support multi-part words throughout the application | Faithlife
• inflected forms noting ambiguous forms Vote at: Inflected forms guide section | Faithlife

There are also elements not specifically philological that forum members have requested at various times - most of which I would support.

• valence of a verb
• required cases of verbal complements
• grammatical class for declining or conjugating

Then there are some minor functional issues:

• add a send BWS here option to avoid creating a new guide every time Vote at: Send BWS here option | Faithlife
• create vocabulary card from the root section
• spark chart expansion is a frequency chart; however, the clustering of the instances is what I usually need. Bring back the old or devise a chord diagram that shows clustering which retaining the spark chart frequency data. Vote a Restore a cluster graph view to parallel frequency | Faithlife.