Keylink confusion in Isaiah 3:17

Page 1 of 1 (5 items)
This post has 4 Replies | 2 Followers

Posts 372
Stephen Miller | Forum Activity | Posted: Wed, Aug 19 2020 3:28 AM

Isaiah 3:17 contains a couple of tricky Hebrew words, but BHS should not keylink

to "honeycomb".

This strange error is repeated in several, but not all, Hebrew interlinears.

I guess some Hebrew interlinears use BHS morphology.

Is there info somewhere about what Hebrew and Greek morphologies are used by all the interlinears.

What the dictionaries etc do with the following words ... is also not all that helpful. But that is a little more complicated.



Posts 136

Hi Stephen:

I just want to ensure we're looking at the same thing. When you right click יְעָרֶֽה in Isaiah 3:17, do you have the surface text highlighted? Or, the lemma? The surface text takes me to the incorrect places (honeycomb) in the corresponding lexicons, but the lemma takes me to the correct places (lay bare). In the image below, the lemma is underlined in green and the surface text is underlined in red. I just want to ensure that you have what's in green highlighted and are then clicking on a lexicon or clicking power lookup.

Posts 9181

Jeremy Thompson (Faithlife):
the lemma takes me to the correct places

One of the reasons to use Hebrew lemmas in Logos Bible Software is that we have done a lot of work to disambiguate homographs and make sure that KeyLinking does go to the right lexicon entries.

Posts 372
Stephen Miller | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Aug 19 2020 6:44 PM


Thx for the reply.

Just double click on the last word of the Hebrew text of Isaiah 3:17.

BHS and BHLenCod keylink to honeycomb.

BHS 3.5, BHS 4.0, BHS 4.2, BHW 4.18, LHB, BHS/WIVU and BHS SESB2 all keylink to bare.

This seems to indicate that the BHS mistake was corrected in every later revision.

I need to correct what I said about interlinears after further checks.

All interlinears that I have repeat the mistake in the "manuscript" section. This might indicate that they are all using uncorrected morphologies.

All interlinears keylink the lemma correctly.

Very confusing.


Posts 19592
Forum MVP
Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :) | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Aug 20 2020 1:53 PM

Stephen Miller:

BHS and BHLenCod keylink to honeycomb.

BHS 3.5, BHS 4.0, BHS 4.2, BHW 4.18, LHB, BHS/WIVU and BHS SESB2 all keylink to bare.

Thread => BHS and BHW includes reply by Vincent Setterholm (was an employee) about BHS and BHW databases plus later reply:

Vincent Setterholm:

This is the SESB version to keep:

LLS:1.0.204  2009-03-12T22:17:45Z BHSSESB.lbxlls

hide the other:

LLS:BHSSESB2 2006-12-16T00:22:51Z BHSSESB2.lbxlls


I still hold some hope that someday we might be able to update BHS/WIVU, particularly since it is still in the base packages - if you hide it, you'll never see if it gets updated. I just wouldn't use that one, personally, in its present state, when there are more up to date options. The main structural difference between BHS/WIVU and BHS SESB is that the pronominal suffixes are split into separate segments in our snapshot edition. More on this in the last paragraph.

All the old Westminster editions with the file names BHSWTSxx can be hidden, the BHW replaces all of them.


Personally, I'd love it if everyone used LHB as their go-to Hebrew Bible, because I'd like to gather as much feedback on that edition as possible, since that's the one we can improve in house. There's another, perhaps more compelling, reason to do with pronominal suffixes (see below). In terms of searching, one major feature LHB currently has that BHW does not is searching on roots (in addition to lemmas), though BHW tags some morph features that LHB does not (like more particular tagging of the volitives for form vs. function). LHB has a slightly fuller treatment of Kethiv-Qere in that it includes the hybrid form with the consonants of the K and the vowels of the Q. (That was something we added to one older edition of the Westminster database, but probably shouldn't have - it wasn't part of their data and they got typo reports for a couple of my mistakes!)


BHW and BHS SESB currently treat pronominal suffixes in the same 'segment' as the word they are attached to, and then have the suffix information tacked on to the end of the morph code. While LHB, AFAT and BHS/WIVU all split the pronominal suffixes out into separate segments. So if you're using only BHS SESB or BHW, you're going to miss out on some of our in-house data work that involves hanging data on individual segments. For example, we've done work disambiguating pronouns by tagging their referent (e.g. where 'him' or 'his' = Moses in some particular instance). You'll miss out on some of that context-sensitive information that comes not from the Hebrew Bible itself, but from our in-house ancillary databases, when you're working with databases that segment the text very differently than the LHB and AFAT. And this, then, is also a reason why one might keep BHS/WIVU around even if one had BHS/SESB - assuming BHS/WIVU gets an update at some point.

Also includes reply by Faithlife on 11 Feb 2014 about deprecated BHS resources

Bradley Grainger (Faithlife):

... if enough users added the same tag, it should sync through community tagging. If you're interested in this experiment, try adding the tag "deprecated" to the following resource IDs. (Paste each resource ID into your command box, open the resource info screen, then click "add tag" and add a "deprecated" tag. I'm not giving the resource titles, because there are many similar titles and I don't want the wrong resource to get tagged incorrectly. And if you don't have all these resource IDs, don't worry.)







Personally added Deprecated to long title and Dep to abbreviated title along with mytag:deprecated

Stephen Miller:
All interlinears keylink the lemma correctly.

Interlinear Bibles by Faithlife use Logos Hebrew Morphology (lbs/he), the same as The Lexham Hebrew Bible

Keep Smiling Smile

Page 1 of 1 (5 items) | RSS