Pattern 31
Word study names its basis
Keep lexical data, translation wording and contextual interpretation separate.
Concrete takeaway
Identify the selected edition, lexical source and mapping basis.
Choose an approach
These are editorial decision conditions to validate. Some alternatives are successive states or can be combined; they are not always exclusive choices.
| Alternative | Use when | Tradeoff or requirement |
|---|---|---|
| A · Selected word | A reliable lexical mapping exists | The selected edition is not identical to the lexical source |
| B · Explore usage | The user explores possible senses in context | A list of senses does not identify the correct interpretation |
| C · No mapping | Alignment is unavailable | Offer another source rather than guess a token match |
The problem
A word selection may imply a reliable connection to an original-language lemma when the edition has no such alignment.
The pattern
Identify the selected edition, lexical source and mapping basis. Present lexical senses and usage in this passage as distinct tasks. If alignment is unavailable, offer another resource rather than inventing it.
Compare the alternatives
Keep lexical data, translation wording and contextual interpretation separate.
A · Selected word
The mapping basis is visible.
B · Explore usage
Lexical possibilities do not collapse into one automatic answer.
C · No mapping
The product names the missing capability.
Original wireframe proposals · No live controls · Grey rows represent schematic text, not loading states · Labelled placeholders are not Scripture quotations
Download this wireframe as SVGFailure modes
Treating one gloss as the word’s universal meaning; fabricated alignment; hiding which lexicon supplies a claim.
Bible and faith considerations
This is a proposed study interaction, not a claim that a particular data format supplies lexical alignment.
What to validate
Use editions with and without word alignment. Can readers distinguish a lexical entry from a claim about the word’s contextual meaning?
Research-informed design proposal. These visual alternatives have not been tested with users in this atlas. Source findings, documented behaviour and this proposed adaptation are different kinds of evidence.
Sources and adaptation
This card is an original design synthesis. The following sources inform its content distinctions, interaction approach or review requirements; they do not validate the whole pattern.
- Resource GuidePublisher feature description reviewed · A product reference; its native interface was not independently tested.
- Evidence-bounded study methodOriginal design proposal · Not an external empirical source.
Common scenarios and flows
- Compare editions across screen sizes — Inspect wording and context while retaining edition identity.
- Prepare teaching with accountable evidence — Build an explanation that another person can inspect, without outsourcing interpretive responsibility.
Design principles in this decision
Editorial application of Missional by Design. These values frame review questions; they do not validate a pattern’s effectiveness.
- Rootedness — Which source and tradition inform this experience, and what meaning or context might this adaptation lose?
Compare alternatives using the task and evidence above. Record competing needs instead of treating a principle as an automatic verdict.