"preterite" in Logos Hebrew parsing

So, by the "parsings supplied by Logos" does that mean, for BH, the 3 databases listed under +/-? And then, say, if any one of those specific databases varies (has preterite) from the other two (with imperfect), that it will always -and only- be listed in this fashion in the EG parsing? So then the line is actually to be read something like: 2 out of 3 databases parse as imperfect and one parses alternatively as "preterite?" (a reading drawn from the content of the +/-). And would the EG parsing vary if 1 of the 3 read as imperfect and 2 read as "preterite?" That is, is the final arbiter for the EG listing like a committee vote among the three? [Although I imagine in almost every case, "preterite" would come in as the outlier among these three DBs.]

Or does "parsings supplied in Logos" mean the Logos DB parsing will always be listed first in the EG parsing line -- even if the other two differ -- and if they differ that will be listed at the end of the parsing line? And is that only in this specific regard with imperfect and preterite? [I don't use EG parsing that much as you might tell from my Qs, but I did not get the impression that other differences between these DBs are always appended at the end of the EG parsing.]

Ahh. Sorry, I am not such a computer or Logos geek, so I ask a Q now and again on this forum to try and make some sense out of the information in Logos.

Seems you are correct regarding different parsing information (!) in EG depending on Bible version - so it is not in BHS transcripta, as in your screenshot.

I was in ESV and then EG lists RI Hebrew text under word by word section with the parsing I referenced.
If I copy to clipboard and paste relevant portion:

My Exegetical Guide

WORD BY WORD
The English-Hebrew Reverse Interlinear Old Testament English Standard Version
Habakkuk 3:16
שָׁמַ֣עְתִּי׀ וַתִּרְגַּ֣ז בִּטְנִ֗י לְקוֹל֙ צָלֲל֣וּ שְׂפָתַ֔י יָב֥וֹא רָקָ֛ב בַּעֲצָמַ֖י וְתַחְתַּ֣י אֶרְגָּ֑ז אֲשֶׁ֤ר אָנ֙וּחַ֙ לְי֣וֹם צָרָ֔ה לַעֲל֖וֹת לְעַ֥ם יְגוּדֶֽנּוּ׃ | ESV OT RI
...
יְגוּדֶֽנּוּ׃ yeḡû·ḏěnʹ·nû I hear, and my body trembles; my lips quiver at the sound; rottenness enters into my bones; my legs tremble beneath me. Yet I will quietly wait for the day of trouble to come upon people who invade us.
גוד gwd assault, attack
verb, Qal, third person, masculine, singular, yiqtōl (imperfect),
energic nûn, third person, masculine, singular, active, preterite

[PS If you want to instruct me as to precisely pasting a screenshot in this forum, that would be appreciated. Some past attempts have not succeeded apparently.]

Thank you.

My question was not about energic nun.

Maybe look at my first post and send your thoughts?

Well, my Q was how to read the line of parsing and you have confirmed the "alternative" reading option that I mentioned as a possibility and that M.J. suggested, so thank you for that. And I will settle for that (partial) answer that the parsing means merely that at least one database (of the 3 under +/-apparently) offers a different alternative parsing.

I  have no need to research why AF parses this as preterite in this passage. I included the two possible specific meanings for "preterite" when it comes to a BH imperfect (yiqtol) form in both my lengthier posts and a simple contextual reading of verses with this type of parsing will prove a fruitful exercise for any Hebrew exegete (even if ultimately rejected in a particular passage). But neither of those possible meanings (whether a formal conjugation conveying a past nuance or a functional meaning as to an incipient imperfective aspect) can be well-described as a "verb family."

And I do have qualms about the seemingly deprecatory representation that AF is "the only Hebrew analysis...that uses the word 'preterite,'" but you did qualify that by admitting that statement may stem from a lack of knowledge.

The partial answer about preference or selection of an alternative or the ordering of terms still left me seeking to better understand Logos-ese, specifically the parsings given in the EG.

So I would like to propose a completely different reading of ALL the parsings in EG, a theory that I would be glad to have confirmed or refuted. In regards to the "preterite" conjoined with "imperfect (yiqtol)" it sort of amounts to "there is an alternate parsing;" but I think the actual reading of these parsing lines is ultimately quite different.

Here is the theory: The parsing information given in EG is indeed not editorial (like "We think this, but there is an alternate parsing"), but rather it is simply an assemblage/collocation of every term from all three of the listed Databases. In other words, the parsing information in the EG means: "All these terms occur in the three databases we sourced."

And I suggest this leads to some very strange parsing lists as a result![shades of Chinatown: "She's my sister; she's my daughter; she's my sister and my daughter!"]  So for two quick exx, pull up the word by word in EG for the ESV at Ps 44.11.

For tsOn, "sheep," Logos says (because it is merely collecting and listing all the terms in all 3 databases), "It is masculine; no it is unmarked gender. It is singular, no it is collective. It is all of these terms in the 3 databases."

And for the first verb form, tittehnEnU, "you put/gave-us," under just the verb portion, the parsing says: "It's second person; no it's first person. It is singular. No it is plural. It is yiqtol (imperfect); no it is preterite. It is all of these terms in the 3 databases."

"It is all of these things, contradictory or not, or even referring to a pronominal suffix as well as the verb, because I am simply a computer program that has looked at these three databases and I am merely presenting an inclusive listing of all those terms here."

PS. Please do not get distracted by the one compound example of a verb + pron. suffix example above. Please show me examples in Logos E.G. that do not fit this theory.

PPS. Should this be a separate post re. Parsings in Logos' EG as representative of three, occasionally disparate, databases?

And, to be even clear about the "data" in Logos, this particular "parsing" method (conflating different "answers" within 3 different databases), is used in Logos exclusively for the Old Testament.

In the New Testament, Logos distinctly presents a "definitive" parsing, as exegetes might expect within an "EXEGETICAL Guide" in accord with the process they were taught to exercise in their language studies.

Could you post a screenshot where your NT EG word by word section lists BOTH imperative and indicative as parsing terms under pisteuw in Jn 14.1? Or other contradictory parsing examples for NT passages?

Then I will stand corrected.

Wow. I stand corrected.TY.

(I should only have said,  "In my Logos edition, I do not see such contradictory parsing in the NT exegetical guide." Actually shouldn't have said it. It was sort of a tag-on to earlier discussion regarding reading OT parsing section.)

Do you happen to know what additional Greek morphology databases or Logos versions need to be purchased to see such? And when they were first made available?

[And you are correct that other resources or simply solid knowledge of the languages alert to contradictory/alternative readings. The question originally was about how to read the parsing line(s) in the EG word for word Hebrew Bible, particularly since some had called alternative parsings there "errors." And no one spoke up to say, "All terms found in three separate databases are included there, whether contradictory or not." I had to eke it out for myself.]

TY for the correction. You are right; I don't have NT resources available that others do that become auto-imported/("populate?"), I guess, into the word-by-word EG section.

[Just to close this thread out, I don't suppose you happen to know if AF was "kicked off its throne" because of criticisms like: "'preterite' is an 'error'" found in posts, I think c. 2005, and on, with people pledging to avoid it? Or other methodological or linguistic reasons?]