I'm still learning....

[rwrobinson88]

I'm just dabbling with searching. Keep running into my lack of getting it.

 

I was on Mark 1:1. Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ υἱοῦ θεοῦ and it's syntax is what I'm trying to search. 

 

At the highest level, its a Adjunct phrase with Ἰησοῦ being the main word and being modified by Χριστοῦ and υἱοῦ θεοῦ. They are both marked as Appositives (phrases?). The latter has another A(djunct) below it. 

 

Here is a picture:

 

 

This is the my construct:

 

 

Here are the results without Mark 1:1:

 

 

It is picking up Matthew 1:1 and here a picture of the graph:

 

 

I'm not really understanding how this works. Why it is catching Matthew 1 but not Mark 1?

 

Also, I thought maybe it is that in Mark 1:1 with υἱοῦ θεοῦ, below the X (appositive) there is a A for υἱοῦ θεοῦ. The interesting thing is, if I'm correct, this is an adjunct phrase because it is to words. But, you can't put a adjunct phrase below an appositive in the construct search. It automatically makes the appositive be within the adjunct phrase. (I hope that makes sense).

 

​There is a lot here. But, I'm not getting it to where I can actually successfully search this phrase Mark 1:1 and get it to give me a hit back. 

 

If I could get some help here, that would be great. I really want to get syntax searching down.

 

Thanks!

[Λύχνις Δαν]

Hey Ryan,

 

  This could be all wet but here is what I can make of it.

 

  One for Marco I suspect. I looked it over and ran some tests.

  There are precious few like examples in the NT, at least that are tagged right now. The three I find are Matt 1:1, Mark 1:1, and Acts 8:27 concerning the Queen of the Ethiopians. Three is not a large sample size but Matt 1:1 and Acts 8:27 are tagged consistently in that it's A ---- X not X ---- A, so long as one accepts that Acts 8:27 shows a portion of the construction in exactly similiar form :

 

 

It looks like Mark 1:1 could be mis-tagged and that the X ought to go to υἱου. Marco would have to comment.

 

I tried a variety of things to see if it could be found including depth and allowing for intervening words. Only changing the second Appositive element to an Adjunct showed it up.

 

On the Adjunct under Apposition I think we need input from the tool developers too. I wonder if there is a missing search element - Appositional Phrase. There is an Apposition Clause but they should have a verb and they seem to in the cases I can find. So to find this case it looks like we need either Appositional Phrase or we need to be able to put an Adjunct under an Apposition.

 

Thx

D

[rwrobinson88]

Yeah, it seems to me that there has to be a tagging issue here. If my search above doesn't catch the second appositive for some reason, but if I replace the second appositive with adjunct and it does, it seems to me there has to be a tagging issue.

 

Also, I believe you're correct about there needing to be a appositive phrase so that the Adjunct can be searched below an appositive phrase since that is how the syntax graph has "marked" it.

[rwrobinson88]

I don't know if other people run into the same issues I am. I'm just running into a lot of questions as I mess with syntax searching in the construct search. Primarily when I'm doing high level searches.

 

Tried another search on Mark 1:2-4. Saw the syntax was pretty fun, so I tried to see if there was anything like it. 

 

Here is a bit of it:

 

 

Here is my search I created:

 

 

It got Mark 1:2 but only Mark 1:2 and only highlights Mark 1:2 when I believe it should be getting all of 1:2-4:

 

 

I hope I'm not a pain, but I just keep running into this wondering if I don't get it or if there is a problem.

 

Thanks.

[rwrobinson88]

I think I should of searched a subject clause instead of a phrase (construct above). 

 

The interesting thing when I do that, it does highlight 1:3 but it doesn't show verse 4? which is actually the subject.

 

Interesting though, when i move the context scale to see verse 4, it doesn't highlight verse 3. 

 

odd

[Λύχνις Δαν]

There may be bugs here. I just ran this and I noticed that depending upon where your context slider is the highlight varies. So I get 1:2 and 1:3 highlighted if the context slider is 0. If it's >= 1 then only 1:2 highlights. In addition if context is 0 then the parallel shows only 1:2 and 1:3, but the cross highlighting for say the N or P elements spreads over to verse 1:10 which follows. This is clearly incorrect as the clauses only extend into 1:4.

 

In addition it needs to be clarified why we are seeing what appears to be a match with a lower level in the construct rather than the higher. I tried messing with depth but it was not successful. I will have to spend more time later on it. Depth is relatively new and I have not yet really played enough with it. I need to go through the recent podcast and get up to date on this.

 

But more generally, I have contended for some time that a better understanding of the theory underlying the syntax model is required to properly use the module. I am not agreed with on this point in all quarters but for me anyway it seems important. I am still trying to acquire such knowledge.

 

Thx

D

[rwrobinson88]

I'm not trying to be rude or dog on anyone. Just a possible loving critique pertaining to serving us as customers. But, it seems like it's all dependent upon Marco/Robert to explain these things.

 

I wish there were more people that could speak to this from Accordance.

[Joel Brown]

Ryan, I'm certainly no syntax expert, but I'll try to address some of the points.

 

1) We are checking with both Rob and Marco, as both tag some Appositive phrases, so we may need to add these as a search option.

2) It is definitely a bug where the search highlighting disappears on Mark 1:3 when changing search contexts - this is being investigated.

3) We've already fixed many search results involving nested clauses, so finding Mark 1:4 with your search is working in the latest build.

 

We're constantly working on improving our results, so please keep testing and reporting as we continue to refine the engine!

 

Thanks for the feedback.

[rwrobinson88]

This is very helpful. You've brought peace to my soul.  

[Robert Holmstedt]

I will confirm that we have appositional clauses in the Hebrew syntax module.

 

To be fair to the Accordance programmers, it is a fairly recent decision based on some research I've been doing on the topic of apposition (my first paper on the topic is available on my academia.edu page, here).

[Marco V. Fabbri]

Ryan,

 

as for the Greek part, I confirm that there is a problem with Mark 1:4. The difficult thing in such things is to sort out whether it is a bug or a wrong tag. Both are possible. If I find a problem with my tagging, I say so and correct it. If, after checking the tagging, I find that it is correct, then I talk to the programmers and they say if they find a bug, then they correct it for the following release.

 

If this weren't enough complicated, GNT28 came out while the syntax was being synched with GNT27. So, we often have "out of synch" problems. For instance, in GNT28 the book names were moved from the apparatus to the text. And the punctuation was changed in many places: an added comma can through out of alignment several verses.

 

So, actually we are all working at different levels and interacting with each other.

 

I need to say: I have tagged Greek and Hebrew for morphology before, but this is a far more difficult process.

 

Your imput is important, as it draws our attention to something that needs revision. In this case, I had missed the post, as the title ran under my radar for Greek syntax. If you notice that I miss a message, please send a personal message to me, and I will turn to it.

 

I don't know if other people run into the same issues I am. I'm just running into a lot of questions as I mess with syntax searching in the construct search. Primarily when I'm doing high level searches.

 

Tried another search on Mark 1:2-4. Saw the syntax was pretty fun, so I tried to see if there was anything like it. 

 

Here is a bit of it:

 

http://www.accordancebible.com/forums/public/style_images/master/attachicon.gifScreen Shot 2016-02-11 at 6.53.44 AM.png

 

Here is my search I created:

 

http://www.accordancebible.com/forums/public/style_images/master/attachicon.gifScreen Shot 2016-02-11 at 6.54.00 AM.png

 

It got Mark 1:2 but only Mark 1:2 and only highlights Mark 1:2 when I believe it should be getting all of 1:2-4:

 

http://www.accordancebible.com/forums/public/style_images/master/attachicon.gifScreen Shot 2016-02-11 at 6.54.13 AM.png

 

I hope I'm not a pain, but I just keep running into this wondering if I don't get it or if there is a problem.

 

Thanks.

[rwrobinson88]

Thank you for the feedback.

 

I'll make sure in the future to put "syntax" in the title of the topic. 

 

I'm continually going to be messing around with searching to continually learn how to use the resource. So, I might have lots of feedback. But, hopefully not too much. 

 

Thanks for all your work!

[rwrobinson88]

Thanks for the hard work of the people on these fixes. 

 

The first search above still isn't coming back with Mark 1:1.

 

But the second search in this thread is fixed and works!!! So, awesome job and thank you! But, still unsure about the first one, now that the appositive phrases are there, but it still isn't catch it. My guess is a tagging issue.

 

Just thought I'd point this out.

 

Thanks again. 

[Marco V. Fabbri]

All right, I see that there is a misalignment due to the brackets that enclose Mark 1:1 [υἱοῦ θεοῦ].

[Marco V. Fabbri]

And, I should add, we have cross checked, and there was actually a problem with brackets and fullstops, that threw alignment off. I have now corrected the tagging so that it will align properly in the next release.

 

If you find more instance, I will include those, too.

[rwrobinson88]

I posted what I believe to be another here:

 

http://www.accordancebible.com/forums/topic/17865-mark-16-syntax-searching-possible-bug/

 

I think there must be something wrong with this one because this search isn't working.