Along lines of “the unexamined life is not worth living,” a couple ponderings about seemingly errant or missing links in the EG, for ex., @ Zc 1 .18[BH 2.1]. * Under lemmas/r)h,“to see,” a link to K&D [Keil & Delitzsch, Commentary on the OT] refers to a construct N (Ariym/(ArE, “cities-of.”) How was such a linkage made? Is it because K&D transliteration used '(left-facing curly-quote) for initial ayin in the word for “cities”and this was confused — as that is more typically used for aleph in transliteration — (and then the quiescent final-aleph of the mss. form for “and-I-saw” was just ignored [reduced jussive/wcpret of a III-heh verb elides heh > aleph as final remaining consonant]? Or was this cnst form, which does occur in 1.17, merely somehow transposed to 1.18, perhaps related to differing EVV/BH versification and then a linkage created? * The K&D reference is actually an explanation/expansion of another lemma, pehrAzoth in 2.4! [BH 2.8], and yet there is no link to K&D for that lemma there [where it would be helpful as an explanation for “open (things)” > cities of the plain > unwalled cities]? Is such a link omitted @ 2.4[8] because of the prior faulty association of the full phrase (Arey-pehrAzoth with r)h in 1.18? * Is this forum, or somewhere else, appropriate to explore such musings? {This pertains to matters in the EG and not to a specific resource, like K&D, where someone might merely “report error” in the context menu.} Or might such a reportage opportunity be built into the EG (or maybe is and I need to be informed)? * Do any logos gurus engage in any type of “clean-ups on aisle x” for such things?

Lemmas or lemmings? "To link or not to link," that is the Q

Along lines of “the unexamined life is not worth living,” a couple ponderings about seemingly errant or missing links in the EG, for ex., @ Zc 1 .18[BH 2.1].

Under lemmas/r)h,“to see,” a link to K&D [Keil & Delitzsch, Commentary on the OT] refers to a construct N (Ariym/(ArE, “cities-of.”) How was such a linkage made? Is it because K&D transliteration used '(left-facing curly-quote) for initial ayin in the word for “cities”and this was confused — as that is more typically used for aleph in transliteration — (and then the quiescent final-aleph of the mss. form for “and-I-saw” was just ignored [reduced jussive/wcpret of a III-heh verb elides heh > aleph as final remaining consonant]? Or was this cnst form, which does occur in 1.17, merely somehow transposed to 1.18, perhaps related to differing EVV/BH versification and then a linkage created?
The K&D reference is actually an explanation/expansion of another lemma, pehrAzoth in 2.4! [BH 2.8], and yet there is no link to K&D for that lemma there [where it would be helpful as an explanation for “open (things)” > cities of the plain > unwalled cities]? Is such a link omitted @ 2.4[8] because of the prior faulty association of the full phrase (Arey-pehrAzoth with r)h in 1.18?
Is this forum, or somewhere else, appropriate to explore such musings? {This pertains to matters in the EG and not to a specific resource, like K&D, where someone might merely “report error” in the context menu.} Or might such a reportage opportunity be built into the EG (or maybe is and I need to be informed)?
Do any logos gurus engage in any type of “clean-ups on aisle x” for such things?

Find more posts tagged with

Accepted answers

All comments

Lew Worthington

I loved the post, and because it has to do with how Logos operates, it looks completely appropriate for discussion. Aisles are often cleaned up, and Logos people often triage such work to a fitting custodian.

I wonder if, when the linking was done, the person doing the job was confused by the Hebrew versification and kind of got lost.

Don Parker

TY for your response Lew!

Like you, I wondered if the differing versification might have contributed (for Q#1; unrelated to @Q#2), since the word for "city/cities" doesn't occur in Zech again until the latter half of the book. And the pron. suf. on the construct form in the prior verse also has a final -y, yod — as part of an ending first person pro. suffix — similar to the plural construct noun form. Still, v. 17 is numbered the same in both Engl & Hebrew. Anyway, it's a curiosity as to how such a link arose.

For practical purposes, probably less than 10% of people (without any Hebrew training) would try to make some kind of silly errant semantic linkage. (Like, If you want YOUR vision, get to a CITY!" Or "CITIES are where people SEE new/wondrous things." )

On the other hand, the absence of a K&D link to 2.4! [BH 2.8] may be more lamentable (at least if one were translating from Hebrew to English) as it provides quite good substantiation for the ubiquitous rendering in EVV .

Kyle G. Anderson

Lemma in Passage is entirely automated. Our corpus of books with potential lemmas or transliterations is too large to ever consider doing an individual review of every word.

We made attempts to match standard transliteration schemas with lemmas. In practice there can be variations in how an author might transliterate a word.

The ultimate goal of the data was to provide an entry point for people to explore the wealth of data that can be found in a Biblical Commentary. Before we generated this data we could only point people to lexicons. That was good but it was leaving out whole avenues of study.

Hope that helps.

Don Parker

So can I take your answers, Kyle, as:

#1 Yes, the transliteration of a word in a commentary accounts for the errant linkage to a different word and to a verse where it does not occur?

#2 [A second stage of?] automation then ruled out any link to 2.4[8]. where a Hebrew lemma actually occurs?

#3 Logos was/is/will be, unchangeable forever.

#4 "Not gonna do it. It wouldn't be prudent."