Jump to content

Hebrew verbs WITHOUT attached suffixes


David42

Recommended Posts

Hello,

 

I've been able to search for verbs WITH attached object suffixes (I learned how after finding a discussion in this forum. Thanks!). That seems to work very smoothly for me:

(reverse of Hebrew order here, with [RANGE gen] <AND> used only to reduce the scope. I have the same problem regardless of RANGE.)

[RANGE gen] <AND> [VERB] [sUFFIX]

 

I have trouble, though, searching for verbs WITHOUT attached suffixes. I've tried the following:

[RANGE gen] <AND> [VERB] <NOT> <FOLLOWED BY> [sUFFIX]

which doesn't produce the desired results. It removes Gen 1:11 and Gen 1:12 due to (I think) the words lemino and lemineihu (later in the verses) having suffixes, whereas I only want to eliminate VERBS that have suffixes themselves.

 

I've also tried variations of <WITHIN> in various positions, without any luck.

 

I feel I must be missing something, and could really use some help with this. Thank you!

Best,

David

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi David, try this

 

[sUFFIX]-@[VERB]

 

What this is saying is that I want any verb that does not have a suffix (hence the minus sign before the [sUFFIX] tag). The @ symbol attaches the condition to the previous term. The <AND> operator means it looks for the two conditions to be met in the same scope (verse, clause, chapter, book - whatever is set in your scope drop down - verse is default)

Edited by Ken Simpson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No problems. Glad to help

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you, Ken, for your first response.

 

Alas, I seem to still have a problem, which I didn't see the first time I tried it:

with the suggested search (as it appears in the box, this time)

[sUFFIX] -@ [VERB]

 

I still have results with suffixes, such as Gen 12:2 (avarekhKHA) and 12:3 (mevarekheKHA and umqallelKHA).

 

Those are representative cases, but I see several more verbs like them (3:11, 3:13, 5:2, 5:4-30 with many cases of holidO, 5:29, 6:7) in a variety of forms.

 

Am I doing something wrong? If there's a problem with the text (I'm using 8.4.7 and the text is BHS-W4 4.14), I'd be happy to know if newer versions work as expected, or if there's a different search that should try.

 

Many thanks to all,

David

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should not use the @ since Accordance treats the suffix as a separate word, so technically no verb has a suffix in its tag.

 

You need , but it’s much easier to use a construct.

 

VerbNoSuffix.png

 

And of course you should upgrade to Accordance 10 and the latest HMT-W4. Why stay in the dark ages?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course - I forgot that Accordance treats the suffix as a separate word.

 

Sorry for the misdirection David

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
×
×
  • Create New...