When is a "lemma?" Prv 1.25
When is a “lemma” in a verse (Not to be a lemming.)? Pr 1.25 example(s)?
1) "Lemmas" in Pr 1.25, EG (s.v. Other Lemmas) lists lEdAh “giving birth” -- a word that does not occur in the verse.
Rather, the same --and there appropriate K&D reference – link is also found under the "lemma" (EtsAh.
K & D mention the form lEdah from Arabic wld [cognate to Hebrew yld root], i.e., the loss of initial w/y merely as a comparable morphological formation process with (EtsAh deriving from root y(ts.
Seems to me this redundant linkage to a K & D reference inappropriately lists a word as a “lemma” that does not even occur in the text and might be needlessly confusing to some Logos users.
2) In a somewhat similar conjoining of words/”lemmas,” rO())sh “head” is listed, although not appearing in Pr 1.25, because K&D complained that an actual lemma in the verse is misinterpreted when it is found elsewhere conjoined with this noun: “Gesenius has inaccurately interpreted the phrase פרע ראש of the shaving off of the hair, instead of the letting it fly loose.”
3) Greek kaiw “burn” is also listed under “lemmas” with a link to a TC notation in Swete, Henry Barclay. The Old Testament in Greek: According to the Septuagint (Apparatus). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1909. (To be transparent, my resource does not show the full listing as in EG, but...) looking at the EG reference kaiw seems to have perhaps been conjured by joining kai “and” [that is what is highlighted in my EG reference] with the first o-class vowel (and that lengthened to omega) in the following negative ou “not.”
Should users just accept that these sorts of things happen rather frequently since Logos uses a computer program(s) to collate info from various sources or might such indicate further refinements via humans are needed? Or am I missing some very broad definition of "lemma" to be understood -- even apart from the differences among lexicons for listing nouns individually or under purported roots -- for any words that don't occur in a verse but might be supposed to have some kind of connection, however remote or even implausibly?
Comments
-
Don Parker said:
1) "Lemmas" in Pr 1.25, EG (s.v. Other Lemmas)
Having deciphered that you are referring to the Exegetical Guide (EG) and its Lemma in Passage section with Lemmas and Other Lemmas, I can begin to respond...
Don Parker said:Should users just accept that these sorts of things happen rather frequently since Logos uses a computer program(s) to collate info from various sources or might such indicate further refinements via humans are needed? Or am I missing some very broad definition of "lemma" to be understood -- even apart from the differences among lexicons for listing nouns individually or under purported roots -- for any words that don't occur in a verse but might be supposed to have some kind of connection, however remote or even implausibly?
I trust that lemmas listed in lexicons are sensible and consistent, and correctly aligned to the text by Faithlife unless a glaring error presents itself. I don't understand the technical assertions in Commentaries for this passage, let alone whether they are relevant because they are listed in this EG section.
So I share the major thrust of your comments.
Dave
===Windows 11 & Android 13
0 -
Well, thank you for the interaction and I hope that in "sharing the thrust" of my comments, you may encourage the Logos divines to further consider the accuracy of such details.
I demure somewhat on a couple points:
1) Lemmas listed in lexicons are "sensible and consistent:" Yes, if "sensible" means reason and scholarship was engaged in assigning a lemma. They are likely "consistent" within each lexicon's approach, but lexicographers may differ in their conclusions and then in the placement of word-forms as to root, for example; and lexicons do sometimes also differ in listing forms individually or under a "root" lemma. That all is sort of ancillary to the issue, and perhaps reinforces the advisability of consulting multiple lexicons occasionally.
2)As to whether lemmas are "correctly aligned to the text by Faithlife," well that is sort of the heart of my post, isn't it? If a word doesn't even appear in the specific text (whether MT or LXX), should a "lemma" appear as though it is specifically in a verse? It appears to me that words in the EG "lemmas" sections -- words which do indeed appear somewhere in lexicons as (elsewhere occurring) biblical word-forms or the grammatical abstraction as a "root," but are not included in the text of a verse itself -- are indeed "aligned to the text by Faithlife." But I am questioning the "correctly" appellation. I welcome further explanation as to why the examples listed for Prv 1.25 are "correct" lemmas if these are words or roots not found in the verse itself.
0 -
Don Parker said:
1) Lemmas listed in lexicons are "sensible and consistent:" Yes, if "sensible" means reason and scholarship was engaged in assigning a lemma. They are likely "consistent" within each lexicon's approach, but lexicographers may differ in their conclusions and then in the placement of word-forms as to root, for example; and lexicons do sometimes also differ in listing forms individually or under a "root" lemma. That all is sort of ancillary to the issue, and perhaps reinforces the advisability of consulting multiple lexicons occasionally.
Lemma is defined as a headword in a dictionary/lexicon and it has meaning only in that context. Do not confuse root with lemma. Only a few dictionaries are organized by root e.g. A Sanskrit-English Dictionary by Sir Monier Monier-Williams. I would expect that Semitic languages also have dictionaries in this form.
Don Parker said:2)As to whether lemmas are "correctly aligned to the text by Faithlife," well that is sort of the heart of my post, isn't it? If a word doesn't even appear in the specific text (whether MT or LXX), should a "lemma" appear as though it is specifically in a verse? It appears to me that words in the EG "lemmas" sections -- words which do indeed appear somewhere in lexicons as (elsewhere occurring) biblical word-forms or the grammatical abstraction as a "root," but are not included in the text of a verse itself -- are indeed "aligned to the text by Faithlife."
I would expect this to happen when there are variants in the original language of the text and where lexicons disagree as to the lemma/derivation of the term. Some Logos programmer could probably identify the reiterative process that creates this "anomaly." But, as I don't know Hebrew, I skipped your question hoping that someone fluent in Hebrew would provide specific explanation specific to this verse although you didn't provide the lemmas in question.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Hi, you are correct when you say "I would expect that Semitic languages also have dictionaries in this form" [with root as headword and noun-forms/derivatives found within those entries]. Most famously for Biblical Hebrew is the classic Brown-Driver-Briggs (BDB) lexicon, as well as some still popular resources like Theological Lexicon of the OT (TLOT) and the Theological Wordbook of the OT (TWOT).
In such resources the root is the lexical headword, without confusion as to terminology. (Although in my posts, I think I clearly distinguished word-forms, as lemmas/headwords in other lexicons with such a preferred format, rather than by roots.) Ironically enough, related to my first example from Prv 1.25, the EG itself lists BOTH the noun AND the root (!) as separate "lemmas" for a single occurrence of the nominal word-form for "counsel/plan." (Tsk, tsk, Logos for "confusing" a root with a lemma.)
I understand if someone doesn't know biblical Hebrew enough to specifically deal with the details I raised.
Many we can put the first two somewhat similar question(s) into an English format? So if one looked at the English phrase, "Jesus wept," and wanted to know more about the English word "wept," should one expect to find "river" and/or "eye" to find listed as "lemmas/headwords," and be directed to those specific words in a dictionary -- merely because some English speakers somewhere said they "cried a river" and others "I cried my eyes out?"
For the last example -- kaiw, which seems merely a conflation and modification of two adjacent Greek words within an LXX variant phrase [NOT an actual textual variant] -- looking at an English text "in the church:" where one finds a variant phrase omits the definite article, instead reading "in church." Should one expect to be pointed to a "lemma"/headword of "inch" (an abbreviated combination of those two words within a variant phrasing)?
0 -
Perhaps K&D's criticism of Gesenius grammar is correct. Yet Gesemius makes multiple references to לֵדָה in his book and includes it in his Index and has a full entry with discussion on the word, lemma, root, whatever.
Logos dug up that fact, and right or not, included it under "Other Lemmas" of the Exegetical Guide. In doing so, Logos brought the discussion to the table. I want that.0 -
Maybe (apologies for previous major typo of "many") we can simplify by looking at ESV of Prv 1:25 :
because you have ignored all my counsel
and [implied/doubled/gapped: because you] would have none of my reproof,My Anglicized questions then are simply:
In what universe are words for "giving birth," "head" and "burn; light; kindle" deemed to be "lemmas" found in this verse and to what word(s) in the text do they have any real linguistic correspondence -- as opposed to a misunderstood association from adjacent word-pairings in other texts or commentaries?
[For the proposed Hebrew "lemmas" one may look in the EG (which, btw, includes 11! Hebrew unvocalized tri-consonantal roots listed as "lemmas" for this verse) or at my original post (although the transliteration system there is my own, since I haven't discovered a way to simply copy/cut and paste from the EG section and I don't have a diacritically-enabled Hebrew font that I have submitted to keyboard memory; and frankly, I think most transliteration systems import some ambiguities in representing each element from the MT.]
0 -
You have a valid point.
Maybe this helps?- Other Lemmas — displays occurrences where the lemma is mentioned in discussion of passages in which the lemma itself does not appear. Example: a commentary contrasts nipto (which occurs in the passage under discussion) with baptizo (which does not occur in the passage).
Lemma in Passage – Logos Help Center
0 - Other Lemmas — displays occurrences where the lemma is mentioned in discussion of passages in which the lemma itself does not appear. Example: a commentary contrasts nipto (which occurs in the passage under discussion) with baptizo (which does not occur in the passage).
-
Well, you are sort of conflating the two issues in my post's first two Qs, but all this is off-topic anyway.
I am not arguing for/against K&D or for/against Gesenius. (Their actual dispute re. this verse is about the specific meaning of another "lemma"/root that does indeed occur in this text; but then Logos discovers and reports another "lemma" from an associated word in their discussion, a word that also does not occur in Prv. 1.25, "head").
I merely looked at the reference in K&D for the EG listing of lEdAh as a lemma. K&D do not say this is the lemma for any word in Prv 1.25, but merely point out that the historical phonological and morphological formation of (EtsAh "counsel" - a word actually in the text -- evidences a similar morphological derivation from its root y-(-ts , as lEdAh from its root y-l-d in the dropping of the first consonant. Then it seems to me that -- merely because K&D supply the root y-l-d pertinent to that phonological/morphological affirmation -- Logos "aligns" this unrelated word to the words in the text of Prv 1.25 as a semantic "lemma." [If one says, "But that's good info to have," I'd agree and say Logos represents this elsewhere in the same section by listing the K&D reference a second time, and then appropriately, under the actual "lemma"/headword/root y-(-ts.]
Of course all lexicons would list these as words that occur SOMEWHERE in SOME biblical text. The question is: How and why is "giving birth" aligned with Prv 1.25 as a "lemma," other than that K&D include that semantically unrelated word to a different end.
Can you show me any lexicon entry for lEdAh, or its root y-l-d, that specifically lists Prv 1.25 as one of its exemplified uses?
Seems to me the point of listing "lemmas" is to say: One may go to a lexicon/dictionary at this entry for further insight on the semantic meaning of this word in the text. And only by imaginary leaps and bounds can the semantic meaning of the Hebrew word for "giving birth" be semantically and historically related to the Hebrew word for "counsel." [Although, sadly, such misguided manipulations are often presented as "results" of word studies, as in "If you accept counsel, you will give birth to your destiny/dreamy thingy." Which is why such seeming technicalities may indeed have significance]
0 -
Now this is interesting!
It would seem to be an affirmative answer to my final original question as to whether Logos uses "lemma" in a broader sense, meaning "any word possibly connected, whether semantically or otherwise, and whether or not in the biblical text before you, if we can find it (or even manufacture such by linking portions of two distinct adjacent words) somewhere, anywhere, in close proximity to a word in the text."
{Even if the example you provide shows a semantic/quasi-synonymous word and the examples I mentioned in Prv 1.25 are far removed from such.}
A follow-up Q -- if this is indeed Logos' expanded "definition" of a "lemma" -- Are you aware of any grammar or lexical resource that provides a similar meaning to "lemma."
0 -
TY again, GaoLu.
Final Q., as you provided real insight into what Logos is actually representing (even if it may not be what some might expect or prefer or even if potentially misleading or manufactured); very helpful for a Logos dabbler like myself!
Any further insight about the criteria used to group these "lemmas?"
In Prv 1.25 numerous "lemmas" -- for words that actually occur in the text -- are listed as "Other lemmas" rather than under the "Lemmas" section.
So any idea what criteria accounts for the distribution of the lemmas into the two sections: "Lemmas" vs. "Other Lemmas (if something like "not found in the text itself, but perhaps related in some fashion").
0 -
Perhaps you are expecting Lexicon-only entries as Lemmas. Here is what the Exegetical Guide is returning:
The Lemma in Passage dataset analyzes all Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek strings in all commentary passages for every commentary available for Logos Bible Software (at time of writing over 6,300 commentaries) and where possible determines a lemma or dictionary lookup form of the word. This allows for retrieval of all commentary discussions of a particular passage that discuss a particular term.Further, many commentaries use a transliterated form of Hebrew or Greek to represent original language words. The Lemma in Passage dataset also analyzes these terms. Where it is possible to associate a term with its occurrence in the passage under comment the dataset contains lemma information as well.
Using Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek script and transliterations results in lemmatization support in over 5,300 commentaries (at time of writing).
See: Lemma in Passage: Dataset Documentation
You can also email: data.lemmainpassage@logos.com
Or join discussion at: https://faithlife.com/lexham-lemma-in-passage-dataset0 -
Well, yes, I was indeed expecting text-only lemmas, as if I had requested a student to exegete the passage/text and provide an initial historical-grammatical-semantic-syntactic analysis of the text's words.
So this response by you out-of-the-gate to my initial post would have saved me and others needless tangents in this thread.
Last quibble, I disagree that "The Lemma in Passage dataset also analyzes these terms." Rather, I see the info there as returning a firehose spray when I was merely requesting a drink of water: Yes, I may get some sips, but I will also probably gag and have some painful discomfort for being on the receiving end of such a spray.
Or to proffer another analogy, send a child out to "collect cans" (for redemption value) and Logos-child comes back with gas cans, garbage cans, canned tuna, etc.
I do not see any "analysis" being involved in the examples I mentioned from Pr 1.25, merely "associations" identified or conflated from resources.
But as I said, I am grateful for your clarification as to what Logos is representing.
0 -
I am trying to follow the discussion here so that I can answer questions appropriately.
First, I will say that GaoLu has done a great service by citing a portion of the documentation for the Lemma in Passage section of the exegetical guide. This tool pulls information from third party resources all into this one place. With that in mind, the term lemma is used to refer to any original language reference from one of the citations found in this section, though individual letters are excluded. This loose connection allows for entries in various resources to be grouped together, and since resources may provide all kinds of specific information this loose connection is important for the tooling. Apologies if that causes confusion. In the Logos ecosystem Lemma tends to be used in the same way that the English "word" is used, but with specific reference to an original language term. In this specific tool the term is used in its broadest sense for functionality.
Second, I do not currently have all the resources that each of you have loaded, and I am not familiar with the abbreviation K & D. What resource is this referring to? If you could list the title and authors, that would be very helpful. Since that is the basis of many of the problems, it is difficult for me to understand some of the questions in this thread, so I will need that info in order to look at those questions more carefully.
0 -
GeseniusJimmy Parks said:Second, I do not currently have all the resources that each of you have loaded, and I am not familiar with the abbreviation K & D. What resource is this referring to? If you could list the title and authors, that would be very helpful. Since that is the basis of many of the problems, it is difficult for me to understand some of the questions in this thread, so I will need that info in order to look at those questions more carefully.
Gesenius, Friedrich Wilhelm. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Edited by E. Kautzsch and Sir Arthur Ernest Cowley. 2d English ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910.
https://ref.ly/logosref/GKC.GKC_$C2$A769.b
K&D
Keil, Carl Friedrich, and Franz Delitzsch. Commentary on the Old Testament. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996.
Internal Logos link:
logosres:kdotcomm;ref=BibleBHS.Pr1.25
(The links may or may not work - I had some trouble with them)0 -
Don Parker said:
So this response by you out-of-the-gate to my initial post would have saved me and others needless tangents in this thread.
Sorry, I assumed that you had checked the documentation. I used to have an employee under me who, when she didn't understand, didn't ask questions but assumed she would figure it out. More than once, I had her make a "Don't assume" sign for her cubical. Seems like I should have made myself one as well. [:$]
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Not that any of this was to the point of my original Q's or that anyone actually addressed any of the specific questions re. Prv 1.25, but the Gesenius' book likely more relevant to the side-discussions might be better considered Gesenius' lexicon [Gesenius' Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon] rather than the GKC grammar listed in the above post.
I say, for a third time, GaoLu did indeed clarify (and you, Mr. Parks, have repeated) this broad usage of the term "lemma" as including all kinds of associated words in texts and commentaries, no matter how loose or confusion-creating those associations may be, as I had posited via the final general Q of my original post.
For myself, I think I shall view the computer program(s) for this section of Logos like a super-powerful electro-magnetic-type of device that may pull in precious metals but also useless or even harmful items. I simply would encourage all Logos users become aware and exercise their own actual analysis as to the value and pertinence of lemmas that do not themselves occur in a text.
In the mental health field, "loose associations" can be a sign of dysfunction.
0 -
I SHOULD do a lot of things. So it is nice to have helpful people here, such as you, who know Logos inside-out to tell me what I am missing. I'm pretty sure I will always be just a dabbler with Logos as I have other interests.
Also, even had I been firm in awareness of Logos' extended reach for lemmas, I still might have hoped for some feedback on the individual ones mentioned: Whether anyone cared to go to the mat to say these loosely associated words are in any way helpful to understanding the meaning of the words in the verse itself.
0 -
I am not good in Hebrew. I only had 1 semester.
The root is language dependent; in Semitic languages, it commonly consists of three consonants and no vowels. The concept of stems also allows for some leeway. Both root and stem are the result of word form analysis, and while there is generally a standard method for doing so, linguists may differ.
The Lemma in Passage section searches your annotations for every instance of the original-language lemma in the passage you want to look into. For example, the Greek word "logos" appears in the context of a debate about John 1:1, even in resources that do not expressly mention the Gospel of John. The results are classified based on the dictionary version of the word and arranged by resource. Lemmas are likely to be equally or more appropriate for certain parts of instruction and research.
Lemma in Passage divides your results into two sections:
- Lemmas in [text] — shows every instances in which each lemma in the passage is mentioned in a conversation about that passage.
- Other Lemmas — shows other lemmas that are mentioned in a discussion of the paragraph you've selected.
Example: theios appears in a commentary on John 1:1. Because it does not exist in the passage, it is classified as Other Lemmas.
The results can be sorted by either Lemma or Book. This also needs to be analyzed by all methodologies.https://mpseminars.com/exploring-lemmas-with-the-same-root/ is a good resource.
I think you are confusing roots with lemmas which I did before too.
These are my questions
- Can I trust a lemma to always be correct for all of the associated manuscript versions?
- Can there be different manuscripts associated with the same Lemma?
https://community.logos.com/forums/t/201817.aspx is a good forum post to look at.
0 -
Congrats on completing your first semester of Hebrew!
And I think you have learned well as to the meaning of "root" in traditional Hebrew studies.
However as to the use of "lemma" in Logos, I think if you will re-read the posts in this thread, you will see that Logos, at least for the EG Lemmas section, uses the term very broadly and it sometimes incorporates roots as well.
Specifically, re-read the documentation provided by GaoLu and note this from Mr./Dr.? Parks: "the term lemma is used to refer to any original language reference from one of the citations found in this section, though individual letters are excluded. This loose connection allows for entries in various resources to be grouped together, and since resources may provide all kinds of specific information this loose connection is important for the tooling. Apologies if that causes confusion. In the Logos ecosystem Lemma tends to be used in the same way that the English "word" is used, but with specific reference to an original language term. In this specific tool the term is used in its broadest sense for functionality. " [bold highlights added by me]
Your Qs are themselves are somewhat broad, so I won't dare to offer answers; maybe others will do so. I think, however, if you continue your Hebrew studies the issues included will be covered along the way.
All the best in your studies.
0
