nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

How does a "lemma" differ from an "other lemma"?

Don Parker

Any chance someone might simply explain what Logos is doing when it differentiates "lemmas" from "other lemmas" in the EG subsection?

The latter seem to be the results of a broader search, perhaps based on a match.nomarks type of search?

In the ex. below, the first "other lemma" search result refers to a type of root with a particular III-consonant, using the format peh[I]-ayin[II]-lamed[III] ("work/form," as a template/grammatical construct for describing Hebrew verbs), so there "lamed-consonant-heh" designates a III-heh verb; altogether unrelated to the lamed preposition in the text itself.

Find more posts tagged with

Resources

Performance

Features

Desktop App

Accepted answers

All comments

Andrew Batishko

Hover your mouse over the "Lemma in Passage" section header. You will see a ? icon appear. Click on that. That will open up the Help Center with a selection from the Help file on that section. That will explain the difference for you.

Don Parker

That's helpful!

TY, Andrew.

Still leaves me wondering how Logos is pulls some of these results.

So the lamed match in the first result in "other lemma" is in no sense a "lemma;" it refers to an older grammatical construct/description for type of verb, and specifically the third consonant position of verbs.

Don Parker

Also could use a bit more help understanding application of the definitions/Help docs as to search results:

"Lemmas in Reference displays where lemmas in the guide passage are quoted in another resource such as a commentary."
So שַׁמּוֹת֩ in Ezk 36.3 is quoted from the Commentary on the Old Testament, as in the Hebrew text, but it is not placed as a "lemma (in reference)" — because it does not precisely match what is identified as the lemma in the guide passage, shin-mem-mem, unvocalized, right?

"Other Lemmas displays lemmas that are discussed in a resource but not quoted directly from the original source material."
[BTW, in this def., "original source material" refers to the resource/basis of the search result, rather than anything like the Hebrew text, right?]
But שָׂפָה in Ezk 36.3 is placed under "Other Lemmas" even though the third search result for the Commentary on the Old Testament has the same consonants and vowels as the identified lemma in the guide passage, and is that commentary's explicit comment on that lemma [besides the adjacent results for the construct form there]??

Don Parker

Maybe a light coming on:

Is it that "original source material" does indeed refer to the Hebrew text?

So that a lemma itself is first extracted from the Hebrew text, and only if that lemma itself equals what is in the Hebrew text, that result is placed as lemma in reference; but in the "other lemma" case, having extracted a lemma from the Hebrew text, if it does not equal what is in the Hebrew text, all such matches get placed in the latter?

Don Parker

So, rarely, then will any search result for a construct noun — other than primarily singular segholate nouns, a few others, with the same construct and absolute singular forms — appear under Lemma (in reference), eh?

The majority of construct nouns miss out there coming and going: differ from the proposed lemma and differ from the manuscript form. For all such, I should jump right to Other Lemma.

Just good to know what's going on. TY again Andrew.

Don Parker

And for verbs, got to check under both headings; while being particularly on the look-out for "false flags"/(contextually)irrelevant homographs under Other Lemmas.

Dave Hooton

I admire your persistence, @Don Parker and I often wonder what percentile of users "pushed" the Other Lemmas function into being when the documentation does not even clarify its use! Lemma in Passage is potentially useful to me for Greek words only…

Don Parker

Well, TY, Dave.

[Taking a positive spin on "persistence" (vs. "plodding mentality when it comes to computer processes," heh, heh.).

I appreciate the patience and expertise of you and others on this forum who help me to understand Logos better.