Trying to look at all of the uses of a Hebrew Word

Please, if anyone could explain to me how generate a bible word study which shows all of the translations of a particular word I would truly appreciate it. Right now I am working with פָּלַל . When I try to generate the report it makes me pick between various definitions, and I would like it to generate inculding all definitions.

Also, with the change to logos 4, I haven't figured out the morph search yet. I would like to do a bible search to see every occurance of the word in the hebrew bible in every pattern. I cannot find good directions in the help file. I am sure the information has been posted somewhere, please help me find it.

Thanks

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Rich DeRuiter

Please, if anyone could explain to me how generate a bible word study which shows all of the translations of a particular word I would truly appreciate it. Right now I am working with פָּלַל . When I try to generate the report it makes me pick between various definitions, and I would like it to generate inculding all definitions.

Also, with the change to logos 4, I haven't figured out the morph search yet. I would like to do a bible search to see every occurance of the word in the hebrew bible in every pattern. I cannot find good directions in the help file. I am sure the information has been posted somewhere, please help me find it.

Thanks

There's a video (the first one) on the Logos video web page below (in my signature line) that shows how to work with the circle diagrams in some effective ways, to do what you're asking. I'm not sure it does exactly what you're asking but it's close.

As to morph searching, you'll have to ask someone who can at least pretend to know what he's talking about. I'm not one of them.

EDIT: As I re-read your request again, I couldn't help but suggest the obvious: how about a lexicon? It gives all the definitions, doesn't it?

Usually my work-flow in this is to first use the "Search this resource" to see how the word is used. This gets me a better 'feel' for the general meaning of a word. Then I look at lexicons and do a BWS.

Mark Barnes

William,

Those are not four definitions of the same word, but four different words that have the same spelling. You can't run a BWS for more than one word at a time.

To do the morph search of every occurence of all four words, you can do this (this is formated for Anderson/Forbes):

William Brannan

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/52894#Comment_52894

This is the actual problem. Look them up in BDB or Gesenius or most other lexicons and you will find that it is actually one word with different definitions. Look closely at other lexicons where they seperate them and you will see all the links to other references are the same such as DBL linking both entries to the same TWOT and Strongs. This is also why there is overlap in English bible versions in how it is translated.

William Brannan

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/52962#Comment_52962

Doing such a search in logos 3 is quick and easy. I just double checked it on my other computer and sure enough I have the proper results in seconds. I have come to like version 4 far more than version 3, but things like this I really hope get fixed.

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/52969#Comment_52969

HALOT has two words at that spelling. But your issue is an issue with the tagging of the resource, not with Logos4. If they really are different words, Logos4 would be correct and Logos3 would be wrong. I suggest you report it as a typo, or perhaps try and take it up with Rick or one of the other Logos employees responsible for linguistics.

William Brannan

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/53201#Comment_53201

I do not have HALOT, but check the vowel markings for me. There are two different words with the same consonants but the vowel markings are different. One is a verb the other a proper noun. I am not concerned about the proper noun.

Late last night I figured it out. Neither logos 3 or 4 are correct, but it depends on what morphology is used and how that morphology tags things. Also, I found that newer lexicons are treating different patters of a word as seperate words such as palal having a seperate entry for the hitpael pattern. It gets even funnier, if one would like to generate searches manually, because all of the morphologies use different tags. It is like you need to learn a seperate language to work with each one. I even discovered that one has an entry for verbs @??w??? where the w stands for waw consecutive. How helpful is that?

While it still seems impossible to do the search in AFAT unless the OR command is used, it is possible in other resources by searching the whole resource and you end up with a script such as <Lemma = lls/he/פּלל> which by the way works in the morph search when the resources are correctly linked.

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/53224#Comment_53224

A. pi.: MHeb. פִּלְפֵּל to investigate, JArm. פַּלְפֵּל to argue; MHeb. and JArm. פלבל to turn the eyes from one side to another…

—1. to pronounce judgement
—2. to be the arbitrator, intercessor
—3. to speak up for someone, as arbitrator or intercessor, with לְ Ezk 1652.
—4. to assume (see MHeb., also to take into consideration, assess, possibly basic meaning, see below, B hitp.)

B. hitp: MHeb. DSS 1QH xvii:18 (completed); Gesenius-B. and KBL II פלל: according to etymology, either —a. from Arb. falla to make incisions as part of a cultic ceremony, so Wellhausen Heid. 126, cf. Smith Rel. Sem.3 321; or —b. from נפל to throw oneself down,

—1. to act as an advocate 1S 225b see above, A 2.
—2. a. to make intercession for, act as an intercessor for: —b. to pray:

The proper noun's then under a separate entry.

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/53251#Comment_53251

I forgot to add the Logos employee Vincent Setterholme has a very helpful post on the differences between morphological searching in L3 and L4 and why L4 is "better". He addresses the problem you raise directly. You may not agree, but at least you'll understand their logic [:)]

William Brannan

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/53254#Comment_53254

Thanks, his article was helpful. The article seems to imply that a root search may be in the future. So I guess in this context a "root" is the lemma of the "lemma."

Each morphology of manuscripts even in logos 4 tags lemmas differently. I assume it is according to the lexicon/authority they base it off. For example the BHS/WHM 4.2 has only one lemma for palal so the particular search I want works there. I would copy and paste what it looks like, but it can't be highlighted (a bug).

Although this is way off topic, I have found this to be a very interesting discovery. I have to wonder if the proliferation of "lemmas" based on a "root/lemma" may be inspired by software in some way. Ever since people have had access to instant definitions of original languages there have been many sermons preached declaring an original word to mean something that it didn't actually mean because consideration was not taken of the parsing and context which would have excluded that meaning. This will not happen now when using such clearly defined "lemmas." Yet, to still be able to get at a root-lemma may be helful to understand biblical concepts. This is why resources such as TWOT which in my library is the most comprehensive resource to research Hebrew Words has all of the "lemmas" under one "lemma." (Someday I would like to add TLOT &TDOT to my collection) since I still find I have to wander to a physical library.

Thanks also for posting the HALOT. I suspected that the HALOT would make distinctions in the fashion it did because after my last post I checked Holladay who enters it in a similar way. Apparently the AFAT breaks it into 3 seperate lemmas and one more lemma for the noun; one more than the HALOT and two more than BHS/WHM.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/52894#Comment_52894

but four different words that have the same spelling

ah, homographs (a.k.a. homoglyphs) ... you have no idea how long I've waited for that word to be useful[:)]