Jump to content


Photo

Hebrew search excluding terms giving unexpected results


  • Please log in to reply
2 replies to this topic

#1 Ken Simpson

Ken Simpson

    Platinum

  • Accordance
  • 1,831 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sydney, Australia
  • Interests:Astronomy
    Archaeology
    Physics
    Hebrew and Greek
    Papyrology
    Orthopædic Surgery
    Yosemite 10.10.1
  • Accordance Version:11.x

Posted 28 February 2013 - 05:22 PM

HI,

I was playing around with wildcard searches the other day and I did a search that (generally speaking) searches for geminates.

 

so I typed into the search box (2=)??? which looks for any three letter root where the second and third root letter are the same.

 

Looks good, 3062 hits with 235 different forms on analysis. Attached File  Default.png   124.21KB   18 downloads

 

Looking at the results I see a few names that I want to exclude from my list (like אֲגַג), so I check the tagging and I see that the tag for אֲגַג says  NOUN proper

 

OK, so I then go the the search menu and put in [ANY -proper] (using the menu - not typing it in)

 

I did the search and got results where there were actually proper nouns. I then realised that using the search menu had not automatically inserted the @ symbol as I expected) - I checked this, and if I selected the [NOUN -proper] from the menu and it did insert the @. Is this expected behaviour?

 

So I manually typed in the @ symbol and did my search. Attached File  Default-1.png   78.35KB   10 downloads

 

Looking good - 470 hits, 22 different forms, and none of them are proper nouns. (the same result as if I had put in [NOUN -proper] by the way)

 

But wait, a minute ago I had 235 different forms, and now only 22? Does that mean that the other 202 hits are all names? Let's check...

 

 [ANY proper]@(2=)??? Attached File  Default-2.png   78.14KB   2 downloads

 

Hmmm, now that only shows me 25 different forms.

 

So when I search for any geminate that does have the tag "proper", and I add the numbers to the search for the geminate that doesn't have the tag "proper" I am still missing 188 forms.

 

What am I missing here? It feels like ANY -proper should be a much bigger group, but the search seems to be constrained to NOUNS even though I am using the ANY tag.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Regards
Ken
Lead Australian Accordance Demonstrator

Administrator, Accordance Exchange

Assistant Minister, Summer Hill Church


#2 Helen Brown

Helen Brown

    Mithril

  • Admin
  • 8,497 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:heart in Israel
  • Accordance Version:11.x

Posted 01 March 2013 - 02:50 AM

It seems that Accordance does look at the parts of speech to which the ANY tag that you defined applies. Since proper only occurs in nouns, it finds the nouns and eliminates the proper nouns. I searched on [ANY -fem] in Gen 1-3 and it found masculine forms, but not any of the particles which have no gender. I posted the results below. I think this logically makes sense, but for you it means that you will have to use the HITS command to eliminate your proper nouns (i.e. search for proper nouns in another tab, and use HITS to remove those results from the search:

[HITS HMT-W4 2]-@(2=)???

 

    ADJECTIVE = 46
                    Masculine = 45
                    Both = 1
        NOUN = 441
                    (no Gender) = 36
                    Masculine = 373
                    Both = 32
        PRONOUN = 17
                    (no Gender) = 3
                    Masculine = 13
                    Common = 1
        SUFFIX = 90
                    (no Gender) = 2
                    Masculine = 80
                    Common = 8
        VERB = 246
                    (no Gender) = 29
                    Masculine = 199
                    Common = 18
 


Helen Brown
OakTree Software

#3 Ken Simpson

Ken Simpson

    Platinum

  • Accordance
  • 1,831 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sydney, Australia
  • Interests:Astronomy
    Archaeology
    Physics
    Hebrew and Greek
    Papyrology
    Orthopædic Surgery
    Yosemite 10.10.1
  • Accordance Version:11.x

Posted 01 March 2013 - 03:06 AM

Thanks Helen,

that makes sense, though not "intuitive sense" if you know what I mean.

 

Thanks for the explanation


Regards
Ken
Lead Australian Accordance Demonstrator

Administrator, Accordance Exchange

Assistant Minister, Summer Hill Church





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users