Jump to content

Bug with clauses search? Or my mistake?


Anonymous
 Share

Recommended Posts

This search works fairly well,

 

image.thumb.png.48047ff62a7eaab4e63e7b8f5be21f7b.png

 

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

 

image.thumb.png.d7afeb505770d494fcec81d23fbd76a0.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone know how to improve this search?

 

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

 

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I start with this search:

image.png.77cac382feddd644b7c2cbb41e36afa5.png

 

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.

 

image.png.dd86923684f4a18b9d3df232f6c2b425.png

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

image.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

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:

 

image.thumb.png.e42c899257ccbab7df5e30c528a1ae73.png

 

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 by Anonymous
added emphasis (bold + underline)
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please I would love to see the solution to this!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Anonymous changed the title to Is this really impossible??? - Syntax search Elohim with plural verb **in clause subsection**

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

ElohimPluralVerbSearch.png

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And here is the hit results:

Screen Shot 2023-01-11 at 11.32.32 AM.png

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

image.png.a14b94eb54b46a7b4304b6f65423c301.png

 

image.png.04a023491cfbf8e5bb0a4380730d4d74.png

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

 

image.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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). 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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:

 

image.png.c94bdee9d65c335f6ef8477becfe0de5.png

 

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:

 

image.thumb.png.a6c4fca0627f4c84e1c164404def252f.png

 

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.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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)." 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

 

image.png.29bfaa0c4368b7e95051782e7b38a470.png

 

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

 

Shalom.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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)

image.png.8df9844093a9f8dc2b350770ef8879e9.png

 

(2)

image.png.9ef8bfc67d2422c40cb2a71b3870f5bd.png

 

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

 

Is this correct or wrong?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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:

 

image.thumb.png.2f8dbc668413bbac768f5296f89bec6d.png

 

image.thumb.png.ec01a6350d4c4271a6581ba77d728496.png

 

Is there a workaround or is this my mistake?

 

Shalom.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

image.png.e795dfc17918d89b8f03a31961da37df.png

 

Here is mine:

image.png.274f7e10e9d6d68bd2c97c326c588dfc.png

 

It crashes every time and does not search anything.

Edited by Anonymous
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Anonymous changed the title to Accordance 14 crashes with sample search No 2 & 3! Repeatable!

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.

 

 

Screenshot 2023-01-13 at 4.57.50 PM.png

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Anonymous changed the title to Is this really impossible??? - Syntax search Elohim with plural verb **in one "sub-clause"**

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...