How do I search for instances of Greek crasis?

[Lawrence]

System: Windows 11, Accordance 14.0.8.

 

I'm trying to learn the Greek (UBS5) vocab used in Romans.

 

First, I created a vocab list by finding all words in Romans and sorting them by frequency count in the NT. It's a bit of a process, but no issues here.

 

Then I tried to look up the words one by one to get some context for them. This worked for most words so far, except two. I don't know whether it's because there's a problem for searching for instances of crasis (words smooshed together to form a single new word) or whether there's something I'm missing. The word appears in BDAG, and if I remove the range, it finds instances in Matthew, Mark, John and Acts - but not Romans.

- κάκεῖ

- κάκεῖθεν

 

How do I find the instances of these words in Romans via a search?

Edited December 18, 2023 by Lawrence

[Mark Allison]

Search—Enter Tag—Crasis

 

 

[Mark Allison]

And if you want to set the range to Romans, add Search—Enter Command—Range

Edited December 18, 2023 by Mark Allison

[Mark Allison]

And it's interesting to see where the crasis is used most often, using the Table analytic

 

 

[Lawrence]

Thanks @Mark Allison, that's helpful.

However, of the 3 instances in Romans that this turns up, two are κάγώ and one is κάκεῖνοι.

κάκεῖ and κάκεῖθεν don't show up at all in any inflection.

 

 

I did a bit more digging. The problem might be in the way I'm harvesting the lexemes:

1. In tab "UBS5", search for "* [range Romans]": 1057 different forms according to the "analysis" item in the pie chart button.

2. Open a new UBS5 tab to count instances used in the NT - search for "* [Range Mt-Rev] <and> [Hits UBS5]": 1062 different forms.

 

The extra 5 lexemes must include κάκεῖ and κάκεῖθεν.

It seems weird to me that step 2 finds a larger number of forms than step 1.

Edited December 18, 2023 by Lawrence

[Ken Simpson]

Hi Lawrence, can I ask what you think your second search is doing? I think there may be a bit of a misunderstanding of the <AND> operator. 
 

if you can explain it in words we can work out a) if there is a misunderstanding and b) how best to accomplish what you’re hoping to do.

 

I’ll grab my Mac and play with the searches and try and work out the difference in the results. 

Edited December 18, 2023 by Ken Simpson

[Ken Simpson]

On closer examination, I think the problem is in your generation of the vocabulary list for Romans. 
 

when I generate my list there is no occurrence of kakei or kakeiqen. It’s actually very simple to generate this list. I’ll post some screencaps. 

[Ken Simpson]

No caps but a little movie.

Vocab romans.mp4.zip

[Ken Simpson]

FYI -  the extra lexemes are:

κἀκεῖ (καί, ἐκεῖ) and there (crasis) = 10

κἀκεῖθεν (καί, ἐκεῖ, θεν) and from there (crasis) = 10

κἄν (καί, εἰ, ἄν) and if = 16

τοὐναντίον (ὁ, ἀντί) on the contrary (adv) = 3

τοὔνομα (ὁ, ὄνομα) the name (crasis) = 1

 

Which are ALL the other words marked as CRASIS in the GNT in Accordance. None of these extra lexemes occur in Romans. 

[Lawrence]

@Ken Simpson 

 

Apologies for the late reply, and thank you for taking time to work with me on this.

 

On 12/18/2023 at 5:22 PM, Ken Simpson said:

Hi Lawrence, can I ask what you think your second search is doing? I think there may be a bit of a misunderstanding of the <AND> operator. 

 

The "κακει [range Romans]" search is intended to find all instances of κάκεῖ (any inflection) in Romans.

 

On 12/18/2023 at 5:52 PM, Ken Simpson said:

On closer examination, I think the problem is in your generation of the vocabulary list for Romans. 
 

when I generate my list there is no occurrence of kakei or kakeiqen. It’s actually very simple to generate this list. I’ll post some screencaps. 

 

Thanks for the video. I get the same result when generating the list the way you did.

My Bible college sometimes provides glosses in tests/exams for words with fewer than some threshold of occurrences in the NT. I use a two-tab approach to do this:

1. Tab 1: "* [Range Romans]"

2. Tab 2: "* [Range Mt-Rev] <and> [Hits Tab 1]"

3. Grab the list from Analysis

 

I've just realised that the [Range Mt-Rev] part is not needed since it is implicit in the "*" search on UBS5. Just "* [Hits Tab 1]" produces the same list, which is the word list from the Tab 1 search, plus a few extra lexemes.

 

On 12/18/2023 at 6:47 PM, Ken Simpson said:

FYI -  the extra lexemes are:

κἀκεῖ (καί, ἐκεῖ) and there (crasis) = 10

κἀκεῖθεν (καί, ἐκεῖ, θεν) and from there (crasis) = 10

κἄν (καί, εἰ, ἄν) and if = 16

τοὐναντίον (ὁ, ἀντί) on the contrary (adv) = 3

τοὔνομα (ὁ, ὄνομα) the name (crasis) = 1

 

Which are ALL the other words marked as CRASIS in the GNT in Accordance. None of these extra lexemes occur in Romans. 

 

Yes, that matches what I found: the extra lexemes are all instances of crasis. But where do they come from? Why do they turn up in the search when they're not in Romans? I'm a bit stumped about this.

Edited December 22, 2023 by Lawrence

[Lawrence]

@Dr. Nathan Parker

The extra lexemes popping up in the search might be a bug.

Are you able to check whether that's the case? If you can verify that it's a bug, would you mind moving this thread to the bug section?

[Ken Simpson]

Hi, I’m on holidays at the moment and away from my computer, but I am pretty sure it’s not a bug. I’m back in 2 weeks time, and will try to work out if it’s a syntax issue (which is what I think) or a bug (which of course it may be). 

[Dr. Nathan Parker]

I'll let @Ken Simpson perform further testing. He can let me know if we need to file a bug report.

 

By the way, my Wi-Fi is out here. Internet is still fine as long as I connect over Ethernet. Wi-Fi AP died. I can't test anything that requires Wi-Fi until the new one arrives. What fun.

[Ken Simpson]

On 12/22/2023 at 5:48 PM, Lawrence said:

Thanks for the video. I get the same result when generating the list the way you did.

My Bible college sometimes provides glosses in tests/exams for words with fewer than some threshold of occurrences in the NT. I use a two-tab approach to do this:

1. Tab 1: "* [Range Romans]"

2. Tab 2: "* [Range Mt-Rev] <and> [Hits Tab 1]"

3. Grab the list from Analysis

 

I've just realised that the [Range Mt-Rev] part is not needed since it is implicit in the "*" search on UBS5. Just "* [Hits Tab 1]" produces the same list, which is the word list from the Tab 1 search, plus a few extra lexemes.

Before I go hunting for the pesky little beasts, the easy way to do this is simply to do this.

 

Let's say the criterion is "show me all the words in romans that occur more than 29 times in the entire NT.

 

type in the search bar:

[COUNT 20+] [RANGE Rom]

 

to break this down, the first term will search the entire NT for words that occur 20 or more times (I actually think there may be a bug in THIS search that I will explore more later)

the second term then says - show me which of these results occur in Romans.

 

Hence it should giver you the results you want. Note, the numbers in the analysis represent the count in Romans with this search.

 

Now to go chasing the explanation for your errant results above.

Edited January 8 by Ken Simpson

[Ken Simpson]

Ok, so I am almost 100% sure I have worked out what is going on here.

 

What your search does is that it gets a list of all the words in Romans, and sets that list as the search in the entire NT. All clear sailing so far.

 

Where it goes wrong is that ALL the crisis words are reported in accordance as 2 lexemes, and κἀκεῖθεν as 3!

in the analysis it looks like this 

κἀκεῖθεν (καί, ἐκεῖ, θεν) and from there (crasis) = 10

 

so the quirk (it's not really a bug) is in the HITS command. This can't really be worked around. I would want kagw (for example) to be searched and reported as kai and egw.

 

So, a far better process is to use my search in the above post. Though that is not without any issues. 

[Lawrence]

@Ken Simpson

 

Thank you for tracking this down. You make it look easy.

 

I'd still call it a bug as the result isn't what it should be. But since it only comes up in the context of crasis, it's easy enough to work around for the purposes of vocab learning.

 

Happy new year!

[Ken Simpson]

6 minutes ago, Lawrence said:

@Ken Simpson

 

Thank you for tracking this down. You make it look easy.

 

I'd still call it a bug as the result isn't what it should be. But since it only comes up in the context of crasis, it's easy enough to work around for the purposes of vocab learning.

 

Happy new year!

Happy New year to you too!

Don't use * [RANGE x] and you won't encounter the problem. So, bug maybe, but one we don't need to encounter. (IMHO)

Edited January 9 by Ken Simpson