Matthew 20:17

[rwrobinson88]

I'm trying to create a search of the structure of Matthew 20:17.

 

It isn't going well.

 

Even with I try to do a higher level search of what seems like the clear structure, I'm not getting a hit.

 

I'm searching:

 

                         Independent Clause

Predicate phrase - Subject Phrase - Predicate Phrase

 

From the syntax graphs, this is exactly what the higher level seems to be. But, I'm not getting it as a result.

 

I get hits like Matthew 17:25 “καὶ ἐλθόντα εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν προέφθασεν αὐτὸν ὁ Ἰησοῦς λέγων· τί σοι δοκεῖ, Σίμων;”  Which seem to have the same thing going on as 20:17.

 

Can anyone explain why this is happening or if I'm missing something?

[Λύχνις Δαν]

Hi Ryan

 

  After a bit of experimentation it looks like it's confused by the top level enclosing N clause. In 20:17 you have

 

       

                                                                    Independent Clause

                       Independent Clause                                                                   Independent Clause

                                                                                           Predicate phrase - Subject Phrase - Predicate Phrase

 

  If you increase the depth on your indep. clause to 2 you find 20:17 but it's matching the wrong clauses and phrases.

 

  In 17:25 though there is no enclosing Independent Clause. I suspect it's a bug to be honest.

 

  The other way I can get the hit to work is by make the two predicate phrases as One Segment in the Phrase structure in the phrase construct dialog. This way appears to hit the right elements.

 

Thx

D

[rwrobinson88]

Hi Ryan

 

  After a bit of experimentation it looks like it's confused by the top level enclosing N clause. In 20:17 you have

 

       

                                                                    Independent Clause

                       Independent Clause                                                                   Independent Clause

                                                                                           Predicate phrase - Subject Phrase - Predicate Phrase

 

  If you increase the depth on your indep. clause to 2 you find 20:17 but it's matching the wrong clauses and phrases.

 

  In 17:25 though there is no enclosing Independent Clause. I suspect it's a bug to be honest.

 

  The other way I can get the hit to work is by make the two predicate phrases as One Segment in the Phrase structure in the phrase construct dialog. This way appears to hit the right elements.

 

Thx

D

 

Thanks for the response. 

 

When you say that it's matching the wrong phrases/clauses, are you talking about it hitting all of ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ^⸃ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· " Ἰδοὺ ἀναβαίνομεν εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα, καὶ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου παραδοθήσεται τοῖς ἀρχιερεῦσιν καὶ γραμματεῦσιν, καὶ κατακρινοῦσιν αὐτὸν θανάτῳ, καὶ παραδώσουσιν αὐτὸν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν εἰς τὸ ἐμπαῖξαι καὶ μαστιγῶσαι καὶ σταυρῶσαι, καὶ τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ ^⸀ἐγερθήσεται." but not "εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα παρέλαβεν τοὺς δώδεκα ^⸀μαθητὰς κατʼ ἰδίαν" for the second predicate phrase? I noticed that after changing the depth.

 

I don't understand why this is.

[Λύχνις Δαν]

Yes that's what I saw. In this enhancement request I filed item 3 was intended to provide clarity in situations like this where it wasn't immediately clear what was going on : https://www.accordancebible.com/forums/topic/20183-three-syntax-search-enhancements-i-could-use/?hl=%2Bsyntax+%2Bhighlight.

 

After going through this last night I was wondering if the problem was the multiple phrase segments but in the end I decided it seemed more likely that the fact that there were two levels of N tags above the P-S-P structure was what was causing issues. But I don't see why that should be a problem. It looked to me like a query done with 0 depth on all elements, which is how I usually start out, was unable to search below that structure and see the P-S-P structure in the first leg of the N-N structure. For clarity I included an image of it below. I am assuming this is what you are expecting it to capture:

 

 

I cannot explain the failure to find this hit as expected function which is why I said I suspect it's a bug. But perhaps someone can explain it.

 

Thx

D

[Joel Brown]

In these cases, you are simply setting up the search incorrectly.  The two P elements you describe are considered split segments of one specific predicate phrase, so what you are really looking for is a case where a predicate phrase is split by a subject phrase.  If you double-click on your Predicate Phrase element, you'll see the Phrase Structure section.  This helps determine what you are looking for when you specify a "Predicate Phrase".  They default to All, which means all segments of a phrase are represented by that construct element.  With your search set to All, of course your desired result isn't found, because by the time all of the predicate phrase segments are considered, there are no subject phrases after it.  When dealing with split predicate phrases, like in Mat 20:17, you want to set it to 'One'.  We added this feature specifically to help search for split phrases, such as this case.

[Λύχνις Δαν]

Hi Joel,

 

  This was the substance of an initial draft reply I wrote which I modified one further study of Mt 17:25. I understand how this works for 20:17 but I cannot yet explain why it is not necessary in finding 17:25. How is it that the first query finds 17:25 if it does not use the one segment restriction ?

 

Thx

D

[rwrobinson88]

Joel, 

 

Would you need to put this:

           Independent Clause (2 Depth)

(Predicate) - Subject - (Predicate)

 

I tried this out but it was still getting the following Clause highlighted:

 

ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ εἶπεναὐτοῖς· Ἰδοὺ ἀναβαίνομεν εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα, καὶ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου παραδοθήσεται τοῖς ἀρχιερεῦσιν καὶ γραμματεῦσιν,καὶ κατακρινοῦσιν αὐτὸν θανάτῳ, καὶ παραδώσουσιν αὐτὸν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν εἰς τὸ ἐμπαῖξαι καὶ μαστιγῶσαι καὶ σταυρῶσαι,καὶ τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ ἐγερθήσεται.

[Joel Brown]

Why a depth of 2?  You are defining top level items, a depth of 0 is sufficient.

[rwrobinson88]

From previous searches, it seemed that was needed to get a hit. But, now that I've removed the depth and I've gotten the exact hit I'm looking for with this:

 

 Independent Clause (0 Depth)

(Predicate) - Subject - (Predicate)

 

And it doesn't continue on into the next predicate phrase. Why that was doing that with the depth on the previous search is somewhat intriguing but not necessary to understand.

 

So, yeah. I think I got the clarity on this one. It primarily rested on the splitting of the phrases.

 

Thanks!