Re. #3, These are given in the number section (= p. 11); the chart on p. 78 is in the 3d declen forms section.Louis L Sorenson wrote: 3. The numbers δύο, τρεῖς, τεσσαρεις are not given in the number section (there is room - chart on p. 78 under Adjectives)
10. The charts have no glosses (as does Smyth's A Greek Grammar), so the student is left looking at a word with no English meaning.
16 The pronoun section (ἐγώ, σύ, ὑμεῖς, ἡμεῖς) is stuck in the middle of adjectives.
#10: I'm not sure why that is necessary for its purpose. Why would a student need to know the English gloss here? Typically such a tool is designed for those trying to puzzle out the form of a word they've encountered. If they want to know its meaning, they would turn to a lexicon, not a forms reference. If this were designed for use as a primary teaching text, then you'd perhaps want the gloss in the chapter since a student is learning both word and form (but probably not in the typical appendix of such a text which is primarily for forms reference).
#16 appears to be a matter of page layout pragmatics. It follows the 2d declension forms and there is not room for 3d declen on the same page, but the pronouns happen to fit nicely. (Bill usually does his own typography and his "eye" has improved dramatically from the 1st to 3d ed of BBG. I assume, but do not know for sure, that he did this one also.) Notice how he also filled blank space on p. 134 where an unrelated note on ablaut appears, and on p.135 with one of his famous "professor cartoons" so that a chart (which spans a 2-page spread) begins on a new page.
And in a later post, Louis says,
If you're referring to having one in the CG, there is one: pp. 154-212. Having said that, I'm not sure why it's called a lexicon. The entries that students need most are not included! This is a list of all words used 10x or more in the NT. A student, however, is more likely to need the less frequent words rather than the most frequent. There is only the bare minimum morphological info (& that only for verbs) and no definitions, only simple glosses. Better, I think, to tell the student that they need to have a good lexicon if they want to learn Greek.It would also be nice to have a short English-Greek lexicon.
Whoops! I just read your statement more carefully. You said English-Greek. I assume the order is deliberate. Sorry; I misread your statement and intent (but I'll leave my comments stand as they are for their own point). For English-Greek, one could use Bullinger. It's not brief, and is essentially a reverse lexicon of the NT based on KJV (as would be expected when it was written), but it does provide a way for a student to figure out what Greek word might be used for some English terms. Else Louw & Nida is more current, though one can't look up a specific word. That might not be a bad idea, however. If one insists on working from English to Greek, then one ought to consider the options available and their possible nuances rather than having a tool that simply gives simple, gloss-based equivalents. Otherwise students end up inevitably creating artificial sentences that do not correspond with anything natural in "real" Greek--the liability of the current fad of trying to teach oral competency. (I'm sure advocates will surely disagree with that assessment; I merely note it as part of my assessment of the approach, not to stir a hornet's nest! )