Sean R. Posted October 6, 2009 Share Posted October 6, 2009 When I discover an interesting grammatical construction in a tagged original language text, I often want to search for similar constructions in other verses that may, or may not, employ different words while maintaining the same grammatical forms. I can relatively easily do this by setting up a search using Accordance's excellent graphical construct search capabilities. This can be, however, a tedious task at times. Here is my request: A feature that enables Accordance to automatically create a construct search using the properties of a currently selected portion of a tagged text. A preference setting would allow the user to specify how stringently Accordance should follow the selected text. For example: If I selected וְאֵלֶ֙יךָ֙ תְּשׁ֣וּקָת֔וֹ from Genesis 4:7, Accordance could automatically create a construct search that would be something like this: First column: PARTICLE conjunction Second column: PARTICLE preposition Third column: SUFFIX second masculine singular Fourth column: NOUN common feminine singular construct Fifth column: SUFFIX third masculine singular Or, adjusting my preferences, my default settings could instruct Accordance to ignore gender, number, and person resulting in a search looking like this: First column: PARTICLE conjunction Second column: PARTICLE preposition Third column: SUFFIX Fourth column: NOUN common construct Fifth column: SUFFIX What do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpkang Posted October 6, 2009 Share Posted October 6, 2009 Brilliant idea! I'll leave it to the developers to comment on how hard or easy it would be to implement... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Lang Posted October 6, 2009 Share Posted October 6, 2009 Believe it or not, we discussed this very idea a while back. For some reason I no longer recall, we decided not to do it. It was probably a combination of higher priority features still waiting to be done, and ambiguity with respect to which information you automatically insert into the Construct. The idea of a preference to allow you to set what information to include is interesting, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean R. Posted October 7, 2009 Author Share Posted October 7, 2009 Believe it or not, we discussed this very idea a while back. For some reason I no longer recall, we decided not to do it. It was probably a combination of higher priority features still waiting to be done, and ambiguity with respect to which information you automatically insert into the Construct. The idea of a preference to allow you to set what information to include is interesting, though. I hope this potential feature will be reconsidered in the future. If not, I'll just have to settle for Accordance's current myriad of tremendous features. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.