lemma difference in Lexham Hebrew-English Interlinear and BHS

In the Lexham Hebrew-English Interlinear, the lemma for the last word in Isaiah 28:16 is shown as חשׁ.

For the BHS Bibles the lemma is shown as חושׁ.

Yet both of them go to חוּשׁ

in Brown-Driver-Briggs.

Why does the Lexham Hebrew-English Interlinear omit the vav in the lemma?

(Also, BHS/WIVU returns 21 results in 21 verses for a search for this lemma, BHS/Westminster 4.2 returns 18 results in 17 verses, and BHS/Westminster 4.0 returns 21 results in 20 verses. Tongue Tied )

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Eric Weiss

I sent an email to the Reverse Interlinear correction/comments email address to alert Logos to this revint@logos.com.

Vincent Setterholm

The fact that you're getting to the right entry in BDB regardless of the spelling used in the database means that the KeyLink tables are working correctly.

Different databases follow different spelling conventions for how to label each lexeme.

Homographs are words that are spelled the same, but have meanings different enough to consider them separate words. There is no universal consensus on the number of homographs to use when lexically analyzing the Hebrew Bible, so some differences between databases (and lexicons) will be due to legitimate differences in this sort of lexical analysis.

There will also be differences attributed to how the kethiv and qere readings are handled in each database (the places in the Massoretic text where a different word was spoken than the consonants written - for various reasons ranging from places where the written text is probably in error to changing words that were deemed inappropriate for a liturgical setting).

The really old Logos databases for Biblical Hebrew (including the 4.0, 3.5 and 2.0 (aka 'BHSMORPH') versions of the Westminster database) had no support for homograph numbers or KeyLink tables, so I recommend hiding them and never giving them another glance. They're out of date and won't function as well as their newer counterparts. But when the modern editions come up with different counts, it can be instructive to look at the verses where the differences occur rather than just assuming that there is an error. For example, in the instance you provide, on the one hand AFAT is splitting some pure noun participles into a different homograph number, while in the 4.2 Westminster data, hash is sometimes treated as part of a longer proper name "maher shalal hash baz", which AFAT has split into four segments. Examining the edge cases where databases disagree is often interesting.