2 replies to this topic

[Lorinda H. M. Hoover]

I'm working with James 3:13-4:10, and I wanted to find repeated roots, while excluding the common "little" words--.i.e. conjunctions, prepositions, etc. This is the search syntax I entered:

*+@ [COUNT 2-10] @-([ARTICLE] ,[CONJUNCTION] , [PREPOSITION], [PARTICLE], [PRONOUN])

At first, I added <AND> [RANGE James 3:13-4:10], which led to some odd results until I remembered that RANGE works a little differently in conjunction with COUNT. So, I created a range of James 3:13-4:10 in my range definitions; this time the results made more sense, until I started discovering words that should have shown up as hits. For example, eirhnikh (adj., v. 17) is not marked as a hit even though eirhnh (n., v.18) is. I've attached a screen shot.

 AccordanceExample.tiff   261.95K   25 downloads

What am I doing wrong?

Thanks!

[Helen Brown]

I think the problem is that COUNT finds by default the number of times the lemma occurs, though you can set it it to count inflected forms, tags, or Key numbers.

Your search returns identical results of you just look for:
[COUNT 2-10] @-([ARTICLE] ,[CONJUNCTION] , [PREPOSITION], [PARTICLE], [PRONOUN])

so adding the +* to look for any root does not make it count the roots, in fact it makes no difference. That is why it did not pick up eirhnikh which occurs only once.

Roots are not really in the BHS database, we add them in, so it is quite amazing what you can do with them, searching and using AGREE in a construct. However, you cannot use them with the COUNT or HITS commands, at least not in version 7.0.3.

[Lorinda H. M. Hoover]

Ah, so that explains it!

Sometime in the future I'd like to see the roots work in this way, but I can certainly manage for now. Thanks for the quick response!