Jump to content

Syntax Search (No article + participle)


rwrobinson88
 Share

Recommended Posts

We have been having a conversation over on another Construct Search (No article + participle). A bug was found. Good stuff. 

 

However, I thought to myself: this should be able to be done with the syntax module. 

 

Here is my search:

 

post-33565-0-60987800-1520510573_thumb.png

 

However, that is having some false hits like that of Matthew 1:22 and τὸ ῥηθὲν. It seems to me though that τὸ ῥηθὲν shouldn't be coming back as a hit from my search. 

 

post-33565-0-13857400-1520510682_thumb.png

 

Does anyone have thoughts on how to run this search in the syntax module?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does the following search get us any closer?

 

It is still a Construct search, but also takes advantage of the syntax information. The syntax module itself can't be directly searched, just the text to which it is attached.

post-29215-0-81396400-1520518117_thumb.png

Edited by Timothy Jenney
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Ryan, Not sure what is happening there. Interesting because removing the NOT from the specifier returns Matt 1:22. I would have expected it to be removed. That said other cases of το ρηθεν behave in the same way, Mt 2:15 and 2:17 for example.

 

You should need a WITHIN 1 between the specifier and predicate phrase too I believe. Otherwise in the positive case you'll get hits with the article separate by several words from the participle. In the negative the prohibition will be too broadly applied.

 

Even so Mt 2:20 shows up, ie. not το ρηθεν.

 

Thx

D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Dr J., your search still returns the ρηθεν hit in Mt 1:22 and like cases. I tried with depth variation and restricting depth to clause boundaries but the results are basically the same.

 

Thx

D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps :

 

post-32023-0-91772700-1520520387_thumb.jpg

 

Thx

D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps :

 

attachicon.gifsc.jpg

 

Thx

D

 

 

That gets rid of το ρηθεν. However, there are other false hits. 

 

This is some of my frustration with engaging with this database. It seems to me that there aren't really that many people that really get how to search it on the Greek side. And only a few on the Hebrew side.

 

It seems that the morphological search in the other thread would be way easier if there weren't the bug. I don't feel like that should be the case. 

 

Here are numerous false hits and what they look like in the syntax trees:

 

post-33565-0-14914400-1520596706_thumb.png

post-33565-0-83601300-1520596712_thumb.png

post-33565-0-18160800-1520596720_thumb.png

post-33565-0-17704300-1520596726_thumb.png

post-33565-0-91250000-1520596735_thumb.png

post-33565-0-13658400-1520596791_thumb.png

post-33565-0-59037500-1520596797_thumb.png

post-33565-0-82631900-1520596808_thumb.png

post-33565-0-70424100-1520596822_thumb.png

post-33565-0-52780000-1520596831_thumb.png

post-33565-0-44469000-1520596837_thumb.png

post-33565-0-80492700-1520596848_thumb.png

post-33565-0-21183200-1520596855_thumb.png

post-33565-0-19255200-1520596861_thumb.png

 

A lot of them have:

                  Phrase

Specifier                  Clause

                      Phrase         Phrase

                                         Participle

 

However, some don't have the Clause under the top level phrase. 

 

Others have a phrase then a phrase then a clause under the second phrase. 

 

This creates a difficulty in searching it seems. I thought that depth would take care of this, but as a fiddle, I couldn't figure it out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there has to be a bug here too. I tried to find a very simple test case. I selected Matthew 4:3 with ὁ πειράζων. Here is what it is in the trees:

 

post-33565-0-52315000-1520597690_thumb.png

 

Here are the queries I set up:

 

post-33565-0-76433400-1520597741_thumb.png

post-33565-0-46396300-1520597752_thumb.png

 

Both still come back with 4:3 as a hit and πειράζων highlighted (not ὁ).

 

Seems to be a bug. My guess is there is some issue with the negation function again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Ryan,

 

  Looking at post #6, your list of false positives, 1:22, 2:2, 2:7, 2:8, 2:23, 3:7, 4:3 are correctly included by my version of the search - I haven't checked them all as they don't all have visible refs and I couldn't quickly identify them. They have participles in them that are not preceded by the article, as well as ones that are and my version of the search highlights the correct one. Mt 1:16 - the first false hit is interesting. It has a significantly different structure and there is a null in there. That said there is a null in Mt 2:2 and it was correctly skipped.

 

  Nonetheless I was puzzled why removing the outermost bit helped when it looked like, at least in some cases, that it was appropriate for it to be there. Your example in post #7 above is of this type. My version of the search without the outer phrase get's this correct highlighting προσελθὼν only. I suspect that including the outer phrase excludes προσελθὼν.

 

  So I agree the negation behaviour with the outer phrase element in place looks incorrect.

 

  I haven't done an extensive review of the cases - restricted my search to Matthew for speed and even there did not review all of them.

 

Thx

D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does seem that removing the top level phrase from the search removes almost all of the false hits I received in my search. However, just to reiterate what you stated, it shouldn't be. 

 

There are a few false hits still. 

 

This is my work through of Chapters 1-14:

  • Matt 1:16
  • 3:11 (my guess is the δὲ messes with things)
  • 4:18 (Σίμωνα τὸν λεγόμενον -- Same tree structure as 1:16)
  • 5:10 (οἱ δεδιωγμένοι)
  • 5:22 (ὁ ὀργιζόμενος τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ)
  • 7:23 (οἱ ἐργαζόμενοι τὴν ἀνομίαν)
  • 10:2 (Σίμων ὁ λεγόμενος - Same tree structure as 1:16  I believe)
  • 10:28 (τὸν δυνάμενον), 10:40 (ὁ ἐμὲ δεχόμενος)
  • 11:8 (οἱ τὰ μαλακὰ φοροῦντες)
  • 11:28 (οἱ κοπιῶντες καὶ πεφορτισμένοι)
  • 12:30 (ὁ μὴ ὢν μετ᾿ ἐμοῦ & ὁ μὴ συνάγων μετ᾿ ἐμοῦ)
  • 13:19 (ὁ μὴ συνάγων μετ᾿ ἐμοῦ & ὁ παρὰ τὴν ὁδὸν σπαρείς)
  • 13:20 (ὁ δὲ ἐπὶ τὰ πετρώδη σπαρείς &  ὁ τὸν λόγον ἀκούων)
  • 13:22 (ὁ τὸν λόγον ἀκούων)
  • 13:23 (ὁ τὸν λόγον ἀκούων καὶ συνιείς)
  • 14:21 (οἱ δὲ ἐσθίοντες)
  • 14:35 (τοὺς κακῶς ἔχοντας)

I might gather the rest. 

 

Clearly something is off here though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is some of my frustration with engaging with this database. It seems to me that there aren't really that many people that really get how to search it on the Greek side. And only a few on the Hebrew side.

 

 

 

 

Hey, hey -- don't drag my Hebrew database into this! Not only do I try to address all the issues mentioned on the forum, a number of users have improved my searches by pointing out different ways to go about it. So clearly I'm not the only one who "gets" it.

Edited by Robert Holmstedt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few means more than one. ;) 

 

However, touché. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I try to address all the issues mentioned on the forum . . .  

 

Hi Robert,

 
This is very much appreciated.
 
A question from when I was reading yesterday: how would you translate אשׁה יראת יהוה היא תתהלל (Prov 31,30),
i.e., would the full null be (אשׁר לה (אשׁה , and how would you translate אשׁה (wife or woman)?
 
Thanks, and regards,
 
Michel
Edited by Michel Gilbert
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess in the context of this book I think יראת is a construct noun, not a construct adjective; also, if an adj, it would be the only case in the HB. 

 

Edit: Of course I mean the only fsc of ירא

Edited by Michel Gilbert
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If יראת is an adj, so far I've found only one clause with similar syntax, Ezek 23,45, ואנשים צדיקם המה ישפטו . Perhaps you can find others with casus pendens, adj (phrase), pronoun as subj, verb. If you do, could you post a screenshot of your construct search? Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Michel.

 

Do you want to start a new thread in the forum with these thoughts/questions? It's quite unrelated to this intent of this post. 

 

Thanks!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, I searched the original search in my first post (only adding a within one between the specifier and the clause) without the negation of the specificer, and things look a lot better. So, just as with a morphological search, the negation isn't functioning properly with searching syntax. It seems to me that it is messing with the highest level phrase also somehow because it is being taken into account properly with the specifier being a + rather than a -. 

 

There are still a few not coming back that should be with the specifier +:

 

  • 7:23 (οἱ ἐργαζόμενοι τὴν ἀνομίαν)
  • 11:28 (οἱ κοπιῶντες καὶ πεφορτισμένοι)
  • 13:20 (ὁ δὲ ἐπὶ τὰ πετρώδη σπαρείς &  ὁ τὸν λόγον ἀκούων) -- This seems to be because of the δὲ. 

I am just a normal joe who works a non-academic/non-clergy job. However, I recently decided to transition to using Accordance primarily (i.e., I plan to be giving you guys more of my money). However, I very much appreciate and use syntax databases for searching purposes. There seem to be some odd things happening here. I hope that people are considering these things as much as they were with morphology construct search (props to Helen responding so well to that). I want to honor Robert and the people that seem to engage a lot of the Hebrew side of things (my repentance?). However, I am focused on Koine in my studies more so. So, I would very much appreciate some feedback and thoughts. I also know that because I don't have all that much time to engage with things in personal time (less time in the near future with another kid coming. yay!), I don't want to continue to spend my own time messing with this if people aren't going to be engaging back with me from Accordance. 

 

This is all said from a place of being practical not critical. I have seen great things from Accordance. I super appreciate the crew and the product. There is much I can say in praise of the product. I am just being honest with where I am at on this, and also it will help me to know going forward if I should really engage on the database, learning to search with better "aim," and honestly, if this is even helpful/something someone is going to do something about. 

 

Shout out to דָנִיאֶל who seems always to be ready to engage on this and figure things out. I appreciate you! 

Edited by rwrobinson88
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Well, since there was no response here, I'll go forward assuming Accordance does not support helping those with detailed searching of the Greek syntax. 

 

Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey rwrobinson,

It's still early and I've only had one cup of coffee, but I'll take a stab at it...

 

There is no doubt that searching for a column that is entirely negated is problematic, since you are asking Accordance to find something that's nonexistent (as Joel has told me and I have found to be the case when looking for monovalent and bivalent searches in Hebrew).

 

So, how about adding the option of first finding any lexeme. Then, place a restriction on the lexeme by stating that the lexeme cannot be an article. I've used a <WITHIN 3 WORDS> command and it eliminated all the false hits in your list above with one exception that was outside those boundaries.

 

Does this help? If not, then I would suggest a manual process of elimination: Find all your positive hits and subtract that from the total number hits. This is what I've had to do in Hebrew, but now I'm going to try this method.

 

BTW, I found this in the Help Files under examples of using the negative command. There are examples of negating a column, but notice there is always something in the column that is not negated.

 

*the link was working for me so I've pasted it here in full: file:///Applications/Accordance%20Aleph.app/Contents/Resources/Accordance%20Help/Default.htm#topics/11_ggtt/negating_element_items.htm

 

post-31158-0-52052500-1522326829_thumb.png

Edited by Jordan S
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, since there was no response here, I'll go forward assuming Accordance does not support helping those with detailed searching of the Greek syntax. 

 

Thanks!

The next podcast will cover some aspects of detailed Greek constructs, specifically using Walace's general characteristics for four classes of conditional sentences.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't forget that a search can combine criteria in the Search Entry box with a construct search. Consider the following, for instance:

 

 *@ -[ARTICLE] <FOLLOWED BY> <WITHIN 1 Words> [LINK Greek Construct]

 

This really is fun, isn't it? :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The next podcast will cover some aspects of detailed Greek constructs, specifically using Walace's general characteristics for four classes of conditional sentences.

 

I'll be interested to see this. I have an intermittent project doing Wallace's grammar stuff in the syntax module, which I haven't updated in a while. I haven't got to conditionals.

 

Thx

D

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks!

 

I've been wondering if someone should put together a set of Constructs for Greek grammar searches. My only hesitation in recommending this is that the real benefit is learning to put them together for oneself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually published mine on github a while back - could do a version for the exchange if there was interest. It has a user tool explaining what was done and what issues, pitfalls and so on had to be dealt with, what bugs existed in a version that obstructed better results, what limitations I found in trying to render some of Wallace's categories into pure syntax searches - many, say in the genitive case, rely heavily on lexical or contextual features rather than pure syntax. As a result some categories are not easily handled in this way. Weeding out of false positives and so on have to be handled too. So I've looked over the cases chapters basically, but have yet to get to much else. 

 

You are right that doing it yourself teaches you a ton, but there is a bunch of trial and error and people benefit from a leg up, and pointers I think.

 

Thx

D

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can envision a project that treats this topic as a laboratory project. In my time in education, complete courses were developed for complex software systems that permitted the student to gain competence with the package by working through a series of experiments that would use the different aspects of the software to solve increasingly complex problems. The key is not to just learn mechanical steps, but to understand the design and methods of computation so that the student could comfortably attack problems that require system components investigated by the current exercises and earlier. It is a slow and spiral approach, because it demands constant application of previously learned skills to new settings, but it does build deep understanding and confidence using the software package. The key is in the tightly constructed exercises that don't reveal the results ahead of time, but allow the student to construct their own understandings, and then throw in exercises that don't give the expected results, which will require a reconstruction of understanding. Cognitive dissonance may be uncomfortable, but it does lead to deeper learning.  As my organic chemistry lab professor emphasized, "you will remember and learn more in here by the mistakes you make than by your successes." For those interested, check Wikipedia on constructivist teaching, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivist_teaching_methods and a synopsis of the learning cycle in science instruction, https://www.narst.org/publications/research/cycle.cfm.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...