Jump to content

Searching for more than one of anything


joshia
 Share

Recommended Posts

Is it possible to use the searchbar to find all verses containing at least to of something

(fx containing at least to infinitives)

 

this construct gets things done:

post-31695-0-49224700-1357557059_thumb.png

 

But can I do something like this

[COUNT >1]@[VERB infinitive]

 

I know count dosn't work this way - but you get the point.

 

Blessings

Erik

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Erik, it sorta depends on what you are looking for. Your construct search is looking for two VERB infinitives within the same verse, which can easily be done in the search box:

 

[VERB infinitive] [VERB infinitive]

 

Now, if you want them to agree on a variety of things (lemma, inflected form, root, etc.), you'll have to use a construct, as the AGREE bubble practically only exists within the construct. This would look like this:

 

Finally, your search [COUNT >1}@[VERB infinitive] is actually pretty close. You can do [COUNT 2-100000]@[VERB infinitive] to find infinitive Verbs that occur more than once within your search range. But, this also might not be what you are looking for. My guess is what you want is the construct AGREE search, which due to its nature, can only really be built in the construct.

 

Edit: Fixed search logic, as [VERB] [VERB] will also find hits that only have 1 VERB.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Joel!

Thanks for the reply.

Trying to keep it simple, as I'm helping teaching a bunch of students, the course is planned for bibleworks, but I'm teaching the accordance users.

But since I'm looking for verses that contain at least to infinitives, at not what infinitives are present more than once in the search-range option 3 is invalid.

So I will teach them the [followed by] methond, and the more advanced construct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

Joel, is there anything special about the number 100000 in your example of: [COUNT 2-100000]@[VERB infinitive]? Would any large number do, as long as it's larger than (or equal to) the frequency of the most often used word in the text being searched?

 

Randy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Randy, you are right, it is just a sufficiently large number. Obviously, the number may need to be higher if you are dealing with a very very large work, but that can easily be discovered by doing some basic statistics with a '*' search.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's always seemed a little strange that we don't have some shorthand way of delineating the maximum number - like (say) a bang (!). Would make little moments like this less prone to error.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, Ken, I've wondered about that too. Or how about simply being able to use the less than/greater than symbols in searches? ( < > ) It would be a very elegant solution.

 

Any chance we could get functionality like this added to Accordance?

 

Thanks!

 

Randy

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...