missing two lemma hits

What morphology is used on the top text; the bottom uses the SESB morphology.

• and

I have the same question: what is the morphology of the text on each platform?

Hi @MJ. Smith and @Donovan R. Palmer, the HMT-W4 is using the Groves-Wheeler Westminster Hebrew Morphology and my text says v.4.22. I hope that answers the question alright.

I tried to investigate this with Accordance, but it keeps crashing… I am running the latest version, so I will not fight it.

Hi @Donovan R. Palmer, thank you for trying to check this, and I am sorry it keeps crashing. :(

Could it be the following: the HMT search includes two bracketed results and if excluded you have 157 hits matching the BHS and BHW count.

Hi @Anon, that is a really good idea, but this is apparently not the case since the "bracketed" words are higher in Logos, and I can attach a screenshot. (Please ignore the yellow highlighting, it is regarding something else with my work).

Sometimes different morphologies make different tagging choices where a form can be ambiguous. For instance, I was looking recently at Ephesians 4:6 where the form of πας could be neuter or masculine. The morphology has to pick one. This concerns gender not lemma but it can happen with lemma in Hebrew. This may or may be the explanation for your particular case, but it is at least a distinct possibility.

Hi @Francis, ya, I agree it must be something like that, but I need to isolate the specific issues.

If you have ability to search for the root in Accordance, it'd be interesting to compare with the root count in Logos' BHS (or even more confusing).

So I did a root search in Accordance which produces 661 hits, but I can't figure out how to do it in Logos. If I try, it limits it to a feminine noun, which is literally missing the point of a root search, so I think I am not doing it correctly. I will post a screenshot of that as well.

As for the bracketed hits in HMT, you could do a search excluding these two verses to test your hunch (or simply compare searches in HMT and BHS outside of Ezekiel). Either way, you can try to isolate with certaintyat least one case where there is a difference between the two counts and then investigate whether the lemma is debated or if it is something else like Qere vs Ketiv, etc.

Hopefully my screenshots have started this investigation, but I am honestly feeling sort of concerned. As we see from my screenshot, there are more bracketed words in Logos, so the count should be higher, not lower, which means two are added there, but then four are missing somewhere else. So now instead of tracking down two missing hits, there are four missing hits, unless I am misunderstanding something.

Just repeating advice (no offense) but you need to take bigger screen shots … hard to see what you're using. Smiling.

Hi @DMB, thanks for letting me know. Tbh, I thought I had been doing that. As an example, is there something specific lacking in the screenshots above? (If so, it would help me understand better what is off about them).

Unfortunately, BHW in Logos doesn't have roots

😐️

they use the 'root' symbol from mathematics, in the right-click menu. Roots show up in the LHB, and LHI (and reverse interlinears but forget them, for counts).

Well, apparently the BHS doesn't have the root thing either, as that is where my screenshot had been. So all this BHW vs BHS, and neither have basic root function? I remember someone had told me before that the Lexham should be avoided for scholarly research (I frankly don't remember which thread it was, or who said that), but whatever the case, I just ran the search in the Lexham and the root has 449 results? (I guess that is why it isn't used for scholarly work).

So then BHS and BHW don't have root functionality, and while Lexham does, it doesn't actually find the roots. So I am attaching a screenshot, and also of the root in Accordance (with a bigger screenshot).

Personally, I'd do the morph search comparison by hebrew book-groups, and then by book, and then by chapter (to find it). Roots will go crazy.

Would you mind clarifying this a little? I am not entirely sure what you mean.

Ok, so I am finding this so confusing that I am not even writing anything on my screenshots. I will just say that the Accordance "passage list" which I imported is called "Acc tdzq" and I had it find the verses in the BHS, then I did the passage list for real in the BHS, and did a few different things. I had it show verses which were only different and it came up with tons of verses, not just two.

Also, even though both the Acc list and BHS list were done in the BHS, all the merge things defaulted to the ESV.

Logos also is giving a strange count for the Accordance list since it seems to be crunching verses which are next to each other, I guess, so I will include a screenshot of Acc also for comparison. I am also finding this confusing, so I hope I am attaching what is needed.

Sorry, I accidentally posted one version twice… here is the other one…

My search of Lexham Hebrew Bible (LHB) for lemma.h:צְדָקָה found 157 results in 150 verses:

Hi @Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :)

Thank you for the screenshots. I appreciate it. Since I was having such a hard time comparing what was going on, I re-ran the BHS and also got those results, which is how it originally was, with it missing two hits compared to Accordance's 159 hits. However, the fact that it is in 150 verses like Accordance really seems to confirm that it is a bracketed issue in an unknown verse. I think to figure it out it really would need to be done comparing only one book at a time as @Francis was suggesting above.

Also, since I was so exhausted when I made those screenshots last night, here is an updated one of the search which matches yours.

Precise Bible Search of LHB for root.h:צדק found 449 results in 422 verses:

Thank you for this as well, and this is concerning. I don't use root functions often, but I would hope to get an accurate result if I do. I am also concerned that the BHS and BHW don't have root functions. So again, since I was so exhausted, I am reposting the root from Accordance (the HMT), which is pulling 661 root hits. That is a pretty major discrepancy.

Is there a way to copy a the verse hits in a true copy format? What I would like to do is run the root in Logos' LHB and then find the differences in Accordance, but simply copying the verses from Logos in a usable format is a multi-step process. Is there a way to simply copy the verses to the clipboard to paste somewhere else? Or am I correct that multiple steps are needed?

@Kristin at the broad level, I would caution against assuming that (1) the same assumptions are made about roots in both softwares. For instance, we frequently see differences between lexica in terms of how lemmas are categorized, sometimes as the same word with different senses, other times as different roots.

Hi @Francis,

Thank you for your detailed response, and I think you raised a lot of important points. I agree that the "issue" with the Lexham roots is a philosophical difference as opposed to an error, sort of like how Strongs and LN give different results for κύριος. I am not under the impression that LN is making an error, as much as they have different numbers because of a different philosophy.

I think this also really addresses the primary concern I have about starting a "lemma" in Accordance, and then moving to Logos, as I am worried about lemma philosophical differences. I would have the same concern if I started a word in Logos and moved to Accordance. I don't really care where the lexes are, I just want to make sure they are all accounted for and without overlap of lemmas.

(2) It would also be useful to know how each software computes (what does the number actually show?). 

In case you or anyone finds it interesting, here is the lexical breakdown of the root in Accordance.

Hi @Francis,

Thank you very much for the link, that was really helpful, and I appreciated the site not only clarifying their philosophy, but also how it differs from BHW and BHS. While I think I gravitate more to the philosophy of BHW, I think for what LHB has as a stated goal, that they do it very well. Thank you again for the link.

Logos Concordance for LHB can show all the lemmas for a root:

Hi @Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :)

Thanks for the screenshot. To be honest, I don't really see the point of the LHB root, since on the extremely rare times I use the root function, the only reason I use it is because I am looking for words which MIGHT have a VERY distant relationship, yet because of the Lexham philosophy (which is valid, just different), they ignore potential words I would be looking for. So I would rather see Accordance's 601 hits and weed through unrelated words than LHB's 449 and miss something.

Puzzling is precise Bible Search of LHB for root.h:צדק finding 449 results while Concordance shows 451.

Ya, I find that unusual as well, but I think it really stresses the point that their root is not finding ALL words of a distant root. While I can't see using the root function, I did like the concept of the Concordance and so I tried it to look at the lex and I am kind of confused for a few reasons.

First, when I opened it, it defaulted and started generating all the words in the ESV (including ch. for chapter, which I would argue is not part of the ESV's text, per se). However, I was able to change it to the BHS and lemma, but I couldn't type in a lemma, like you seemed to do for your root.

Second, is the way to find a lemma simply to scroll down? I get this is user error and I am just messing up the alphabet, but shouldn't my lemma be near the middle of this list? I don't see it.