Graphical construct search

[Sean R.]

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?

[jpkang]

Brilliant idea! I'll leave it to the developers to comment on how hard or easy it would be to implement...

[David Lang]

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.

[Sean R.]

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.