Bug with clauses search? Or my mistake?

[Accordance Enthusiast]

This search works fairly well,

 

 

but some of the hits marked the wrong word, even though the verse does contain the desired result:

 

 

[Accordance Enthusiast]

Does anyone know how to improve this search?

 

How do I get the same / similar results in Holmstedt?

 

Thanks.

[Accordance Enthusiast]

I start with this search:

 

Then I drag everything to the left to make an open column on the right-hand side, and everything gest messed up! The tab freezes and I cannot change anything further.

 

 

 

[Robert Holmstedt]

This should go in bugs, since it's not really a syntax question (though it's clearly important!). 

[Accordance Enthusiast]

18 minutes ago, Robert Holmstedt said:

This should go in bugs

 

Good day Mr. Holmstedt, Maybe someone could move it (I can't move it).

I just wanted to make sure someone sees it and understands the importance.

[Accordance Enthusiast]

This search works very well:

 

 

 

The only problem is with 'compound' names, where one person's name is written as two words, which brings up false results.

[Accordance Enthusiast]

Here is an improved search:

 

[Donald Cobb]

Your last image doesn't work. Is it a jpeg file? Perhaps you could post an alternate image.

[Accordance Enthusiast]

Hope that works!

 

[Accordance Enthusiast]

Hi there, I'm trying to find all examples where the word Elohim is used with the plural verb.

 

I've read previous forums on the topic, but still, I can't get accurate results.

 

As you can see, it found a hit where Elohim and the Predicate (Verb) are in two different subsections of the clause:

 

 

Though these subsets of the clause are distinguished in the syntax graphs by separate bullets, I can find no way to reproduce that in the search.

Even the Accordance automatic construct simply collapses the clause to one level though the graph shows a main level, and two subsets indicated by the bullets.

 

I would be very glad if someone could explain how I can set the syntax search to search only in one subset (under one bullet) in the clause.

 

Perhaps Professor @Robert Holmstedt could help?

Or maybe a programmer like @Silas Marrs?

 

Thank you for any help.

 

Shalom

Edited January 13 by Anonymous
added emphasis (bold + underline)

[Nathan Parker]

I thought I pulled this off once but forgot what I did. I’ll see if I can remember. In the meantime, Robert may know.

[Accordance Enthusiast]

Please I would love to see the solution to this!

[Robert Holmstedt]

I have attached the search. Be sure to click "search both directions" to get all the hits. 

[Robert Holmstedt]

And here is the hit results:

[Accordance Enthusiast]

Though the documentation indicates that this should be possible, I get 0 hits in the entire Hebrew Bible:

 

 

[Accordance Enthusiast]

7 hours ago, Robert Holmstedt said:

I have attached the search

 

Thank you so much Mr. Holmstedt! 

 

So, I misunderstood the clause searching options. I thought that if I set the "depth" to 0 it = "don't allow hits in sub clauses." 

But I see I was wrong. So, the depth refers to other clauses / phrases under the applicable clause, while the "hits in sub clauses" refers to the clause itself, but a subset of that clause.

 

Thank you very much.

 

Shalom.

[Accordance Enthusiast]

I still have a question Mr. @Robert Holmstedt.

 

What if I the clause is split into two subclauses, and I want to find hits within only one of these subclauses at a time?

 

So, I want to find hits in subclauses, but both my specified phrases should be found within one subclause.

 

I would appreciate any advice,

 

Shalom

 

 

[Robert Holmstedt]

Anonymous,

 

I'm afraid I do not understand your question. The example you give in the screenshot (Gen 45:8) does not help because the 2mp plural verb in the first clause is irrelevant to the plural/singular interoperation of the word God in the second clause. 

 

On the depth level, it really has nothing to do with clauses in a specific way; rather, it is a feature related to the rather complicated programming of the syntax searching. It is best understand as a cline of squishiness in the searching of the phrase hierarch(ies), from 0 = literal (no squish at all; the search will only find *exactly* what you've built) to X+1 (the higher the number, the greater the squish). 

 

 

 

 

[Accordance Enthusiast]

24 minutes ago, Robert Holmstedt said:

Anonymous,

 

I'm afraid I do not understand your question. The example you give in the screenshot (Gen 45:8) does not help because the 2mp plural verb in the first clause is irrelevant to the plural/singular interoperation of the word God in the second clause.

 

Sorry for the confusing question.

 

In the latest screenshot, regardless of the word Elohim, I'm simply asking about the clause vs. sub-clause:

 

 

I can see a main clause, and a sub clause.

 

If I select, "don't find hits in sub clauses", it seems it will still find hits in a subclause if all the search terms are found in that clause. Consider the following result:

 

 

Though I specified "don't find hits in sub clauses", it found a hit in a subclause, because all my search terms were found in this single subclause.

 

Hope it now makes sense.

 

Shalom.

 

[Robert Holmstedt]

In Gen 45:8, there is no subordinate clause. We have analyzed the כי as an adversative conjunction: "So then, not you have sent me; rather God (sent me)." 

 

[Accordance Enthusiast]

9 hours ago, Robert Holmstedt said:

In Gen 45:8, there is no subordinate clause

 

Mr. @Robert Holmstedt, I really appreciate that you have responded to my posts. But I still don't have the answer to my initial question.

 

1. What is the function of the bullets below, if they do not indicate subordinate clauses?

2. How do I search under one bullet at a time in the construct search?

 

 

I really want to understand these bullets which seem to form sub sections of the clause.

 

Shalom.

 

[Accordance Enthusiast]

I'm not sure, but this seems to be a bug.

 

Compare the results from the Holmstedt Syntax documentation (1), with the results I get (2)

 

(1)

 

(2)

 

Next to a preposition I get two flags instead of one.

 

Is this correct or wrong?

[Accordance Enthusiast]

Though my search specified only two nouns and two verbs, in two sub-clauses, it often finds a third verb in a third sub-clause:

 

 

 

Is there a workaround or is this my mistake?

 

Shalom.

[Accordance Enthusiast]

Here is the sample search no. 3 from the documentation: (Also crashes with no. 2)

 

Here is mine:

 

It crashes every time and does not search anything.

Edited January 13 by Anonymous

[Robert Holmstedt]

The dots simply mean that there are two equal level clauses tagged under one clause node. We do this mostly in poetry. Because it has clearly created confusion, I have now changed the tagging in Gen 45:8 so that it is clearly two clauses. The bullets will be searched as distinct clauses like any other distinct clause. But because they do not fundamentally differ from, for example, two coordinate N labeled clauses, they cannot be picked out in a search (i.e., there is nothing special to pick out).

 

Subordination is clearly marked in the trees by the LA label on the highest node of the subordinate clause. I simply scanned ahead in the trees to find the closest example and have inserted the screenshot below.