A. Smith Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 When I search for compound subjects, only the first term is highlighted and not the other, discontinuous, constituents of the subject For example, at Mt 9.19 only IHSOUS is highlighted and not MAQHTAI. Shouldn't they both be highlighted as they are both a part of the same subject? It seems like that's the point of searching for a compound subject--to find the disconnected parts of a whole subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joel Brown Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 Anthony, can you post a picture of your construct search? I have an idea that may help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A. Smith Posted February 6, 2015 Author Share Posted February 6, 2015 here you go! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A. Smith Posted February 6, 2015 Author Share Posted February 6, 2015 (edited) Now, I understand these are two different clauses, but they are joined by the upside down red swoosh (I have no idea what to call it) which, as I understand to indicate a compound subject and, of course, the passage showed up when searching for a compound subject. Edit: Scratch that idiocy. These are not two clauses! I'm very tired and shouldn't be messing with syntax right now! Edited February 6, 2015 by A. Smith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A. Smith Posted February 6, 2015 Author Share Posted February 6, 2015 Joel, does the specific search I used explain the results highliting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Λύχνις Δαν Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 I see what you mean Anthony. There are more examples of that kind of highlighting in those results. Matt 11:13 for example. I cannot identify any real pattern to it. Searching for *@[subject] also reveals some oddities for example in 11:27 και is highlighted whereas I would have expected a vertical read mark highlighting between και and ᾧ. Hopefully Marco drops in and can explain. thx D 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A. Smith Posted February 10, 2015 Author Share Posted February 10, 2015 Can anyone tell me if this is a bug or a function of a wrongly phrased search? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Simpson Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 It looks like an area of the tagging I don’t get either. Try this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A. Smith Posted February 10, 2015 Author Share Posted February 10, 2015 So if I understand your search correctly, Ken, a search for subject-c will only show the 'compound' end of the subject chain and a search for subject will show the initial element in the chain. Thus searching for both will highlight all aspects of the compound subject. Makes sense, I guess. However, the tags on the various subject constants are all tagged simply, subject (at least according to the ID box). So I'm not sure I understand why searching for both elements is needed? Also, can you explain why I get different results when adding the 'clause' element to the construct search (of course, I can't search syntax with the 'scope' limited to clause). In other words, how are things being counted differently depending on if the clause element is included or not? Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Simpson Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Hi Anthony, I am very happy to explore this together, but I am certainly no expert in the syntaxing. In my universe I would expect SYNTAX-C to find both elements of the a compound subject, not just the first, but there must be some reason why Marco has done this. We may have to wait for an explanation. SYNTAX-C must be a hidden tag in some fashion, or at least perhaps ID is set only to show that element to the left of the - symbol. That’s a programming issue, but there is more to the tagging than what you see in the ID box. I am not sure I quite get your comment about the “clause element”. If it’s not in the construct then it will find any elements within SCOPE that has the search parameter (SUBJECT-C and SUBJECT) irrespective of clause boundaries, which is not what you want. You want the subject elements to be within the same clause as each other. But I actually don’t think that’s what you’re asking. Can you post a couple of examples? Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joel Brown Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 After some investigation, I believe this is a bug in the Greek results that we'll get fixed ASAP. Those with the Hebrew Syntax should be able to confirm that it works properly there, highlighting all compound subjects. Sorry about the problem and the delay! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Simpson Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Yeah - thanks Joel. Thought that might be the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A. Smith Posted February 11, 2015 Author Share Posted February 11, 2015 Thanks. It is the Hebrew text that actually brought this to mind. I was ready my the PDF on syntax searching by Holmstedt and my greek results didn't match. Frankly, I'm glad to know it wasn't me! And I'm glad that the A-team is so quick on bug identification and remedy. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.c3123c857d1029f98e39c9394adc358d.png)
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now