Jump to content


Photo

Command String Problem


  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 gregoreite

gregoreite

    Member

  • Active Members
  • Pip
  • 16 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Dallas, Texas

Posted 03 April 2009 - 04:47 PM

I have run into a problem with a search string. I am trying to find a certain discourse sequence for a sentence: verb, followed by noun or pronoun in the accusative, followed by noun or pronoun in the nominative. My search string: [VERB] <FOLLOWED BY> (([NOUN accusative] <OR> [PRONOUN accusative])<FOLLOWED BY> ([NOUN nominative] <OR> [PRONOUN nominative] )).

The results are not what I expected. One or more of the above elements are not present, but sentences are highlighted. I am suspicious that all constructs are not evidenced. Could someone help me correct my command string?

Thanks,
Greg

#2 jpkang

jpkang

    Platinum

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle, WA
  • Interests:Comparative Semitics; ancient Hebrew semantics; Hebrew syntax; history and religion of ancient Israel; history of interpretation.
  • Accordance Version:10.x

Posted 03 April 2009 - 05:07 PM

This type of search needs to be done with a Construct window.

Check out the Greek and Hebrew Construct Searches video tutorial.
J. P. Kang, Ph.D. (Bible)

#3 SteveP

SteveP

    Bronze

  • Active Members
  • PipPip
  • 51 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA
  • Accordance Version:9.x

Posted 03 April 2009 - 05:48 PM

This type of search needs to be done with a Construct window.

As I am just learning about Accordance, can you tell me why it must be done with the construct window and won't work as presented? I'd like to know. I know the construct window will allow you combinations with AGREE/INTER and so forth that are not possible via a text command string, but this example seems pretty straightforward as presented. If there are limitations in the search arguments, I'd like to become aware of the specific areas they are not consistent with expectations.
SteveP

#4 Helen Brown

Helen Brown

    Mithril

  • Admin
  • 8,233 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:heart in Israel
  • Accordance Version:10.x

Posted 03 April 2009 - 11:48 PM

True, you have to use the Construct window to define agreements or an Inter, but it is often better with multiple <FOLLOWED BY> and nested commands. Even though the syntax of this search looks OK to me, Accordance is trying to parse this syntax and look for all possible combinations. More than one <FOLLOWED BY> makes it very messy. See how elegant this is in a construct which took only seconds to create:

Attached File  construct.jpg   34.61KB   53 downloads
Helen Brown
OakTree Software

#5 gregoreite

gregoreite

    Member

  • Active Members
  • Pip
  • 16 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Dallas, Texas

Posted 12 April 2009 - 08:41 PM

Thanks for the help. Greg

#6 gregoreite

gregoreite

    Member

  • Active Members
  • Pip
  • 16 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Dallas, Texas

Posted 21 April 2009 - 08:45 AM

Helen et al,

I have taken the construct as you lay it out and applied it to the book of Philippians, but get kagw as one of the highlighted results (as a nominative noun or pronoun?). Any thoughts or suggestions?

Thanks

#7 gregoreite

gregoreite

    Member

  • Active Members
  • Pip
  • 16 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Dallas, Texas

Posted 09 May 2009 - 08:36 PM

Helen et al,

I am reposting this hoping to get some more help. Thanks for looking this over for me. I did review the video tutorial.

Thanks,

Greg

Edited by Helen Brown, 09 May 2009 - 10:18 PM.


#8 Helen Brown

Helen Brown

    Mithril

  • Admin
  • 8,233 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:heart in Israel
  • Accordance Version:10.x

Posted 09 May 2009 - 10:19 PM

I do not get kagw at all with my construct in Philippians. Did you follow the construct exactly? Which text and version are you searching?
Helen Brown
OakTree Software

#9 gregoreite

gregoreite

    Member

  • Active Members
  • Pip
  • 16 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Dallas, Texas

Posted 11 May 2009 - 07:29 PM

I do not get kagw at all with my construct in Philippians. Did you follow the construct exactly? Which text and version are you searching?


I believe I am following your construct (above) exactly for Philippians. Both Phil 2:19 and 2:28 call up kagw for me.

#10 Helen Brown

Helen Brown

    Mithril

  • Admin
  • 8,233 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:heart in Israel
  • Accordance Version:10.x

Posted 11 May 2009 - 10:28 PM

What text and version number are you searching?
Helen Brown
OakTree Software

#11 gregoreite

gregoreite

    Member

  • Active Members
  • Pip
  • 16 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Dallas, Texas

Posted 15 May 2009 - 04:25 PM

What text and version number are you searching?

I requested that the text be limited to Philippians (using the example of your construct window). I just upgraded to version 8.2.3.

kagw is given as a result for Phil 2:19 and 2:28.

#12 gregoreite

gregoreite

    Member

  • Active Members
  • Pip
  • 16 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Dallas, Texas

Posted 15 May 2009 - 07:02 PM

I requested that the text be limited to Philippians (using the example of your construct window). I just upgraded to version 8.2.3.

kagw is given as a result for Phil 2:19 and 2:28.

Problem solved! kagw is pulling out the nominative pronoun egw from the construct. I was thrown off because it showed up as an adverb in the instant details box and was showing in a separate unrelated clause than what I was looking for (I need to somehow restrict the "within" search parameter?)--and I was too focused. :)




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users