It is missing for shamar but I tried a different word and had results. Not sure what's happening.
This one is impressive in that there are no example uses either. I think the problem has something to do with entering a word without it being qualified for sense. Excellent catch. (graphic doesn't include all senses)
Okay, I've made some progress in sorting this out. Compare
It appears that Example Uses and Grammatical Relationships take the word form of the entry. Therefore if the lemma form does not occur, the examples and relationships will not populate.
However, with your multi-sense lemma, I am unable to enter it without a sense identifier. Is the error possibly that you were allowed to create the BWS in the first place? or is the blocking of my entering without a sense indicator a problem?
At the very least we can say that the BWS mixes lemma-sense-word in a confusing manner and that we need help figuring out what the intended behavior is.
More problems!!!
This one is impressive in that there are no example uses either. I think the problem has something to do with entering a word without it being qualified for sense.
The first two senses from h:smr שׁמר 1 שׁמר 2 give the same BWS results despite one being a verb and the other a noun. But I also get the same results with שׁמר when run from the ESV entry at Deut 4:15. The Root section is also interesting. Primary Hebrew bible is LHI, preferred bible is ESV.
Corrections to my understanding:
1. The number is usually a homograph number from the lexicon rather than a sense number.
2. Example uses are drawn from the grammatical relationships - words used often and verbs are more likely to generate example uses. Grammatical particles generally will not populate either section.
I haven't sorted out how the grammar gets simplified for the grammatical relationships section. At the very least, this last example will help me sort the pieces of the puzzle together.
Okay, how did you get the BWS to accept the lemma without the homograph identifier 9?
If I type h:kiy in the search field, I get a number of homographs and then I pick the one I want. The number only shows in the drop-down list, not in the search field after one has been picked.
On the current beta the homograph number does show.
I'm throughly confused with h:kiy.
There are nine homographs (1 to 9) and the only ones that show results in BWS are 3 that seems to incorporate the meanings of 1 thru 8, and 9 which is totally different grammatically and is the only one with a Root.
BUT 9 has a lemma search <lemma = lbs/he/כִּי:1> whilst 3 has a lemma search <lemma = lbs/he/כִּי:2>
My preferred bible/RI is ESV. Preferred Hebrew bible is LHB.
I'm trying to work through it in terms of homographs, lemmas and roots ... but I keep finding non sequiturs Not to mention that people post examples with starting lemmas I'm not allowed to enter. Do you think Logos added code specifically for me and other noisy perfectionists?[;)]
Part of the confusion Dave, may stem from the fact that these are not true homographs. Words like h:kiy can typically function in a two or three grammatical categories (relative pronoun, demonstrative, subordinating conjunction, etc). Then in a given category, the sense may have a bit of elasticity depending on context. When these senses are all listed as homographs, it is not quite accurate (I would think) and it is normal that several (sometimes all) actually point to the same entry.
How this all relates to the bug I cannot say. I am just commenting on the Hebrew part.
it is not quite accurate (I would think) and it is normal that several (sometimes all) actually point to the same entry.
I don't think it helps to only get results for 2 of the 9 homonyms. Why not delete the extras and just list two?
There might be other (useful) reasons why they have laid it out this way?
I agree that Logos may have good reasons - cross-product for analysis view of a search makes all sort of things make sense. However, I intend to be a thorn in their side until they give me a reasonable answer - with which I may or may not agree but at least I will know what I'm looking at.
I was off the grid for a bit, so I just spotting this thread.
We're wrangling data from a number of different sources for these reports. Relevant to this thread, the grammatical relationships section is coming from files based on AFAT and its syntax database, no matter what database you're starting from. When there is a 1:1 line up of lemmas from the source database to the destination database, things go smoothly. Dev has some code for making a best guess when the relationship between databases is 1:many (which is the case here in the original post where a single verb in BHS SESB is broken into 2 homographs, one for the verbal forms and one for participles that are functioning as nouns in AFAT). I think this is a case where the code for making that best-guess transition failed. On the assumption that this case is probably symptomatic of other words that might have slipped through the cracks, I sent this info to Dev and we'll look at the process.
Thanks.
