lprado317 Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Hi, I'm working on a project that requires me to find what words in a chapter of the Hebrew Bible occur more than once. For example, if I wanted to know what words in Psalm 91 occur more than once, can Accordance highlight this? If so, how? I'm really trying to avoid doing this manually (but will if I must!). I'd appreciate any help! Thanks! Lenny P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joel Brown Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 You'll need to use a construct to do this. Set up your construct with two LEX * terms, and specify that they must AGREE in Lexical (or Inflected, as your research demands it) form. This means we are searching for two or more words that have the same Lemma (or Inflected form). Finally, in your linked search tab, set your Scope to be Chapter using the (+) button. If you'd like to narrow it down to a specific chapter, you can do that with the RANGE command or by adding another condition with the (+) button again. I've attached a sample below: Edit: Note, if you don't want all of the particles marked, you can add a Particle element to one of your columns and put the NOT over it. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lprado317 Posted January 28, 2015 Author Share Posted January 28, 2015 Joel, Thank you very much for your help! This was extremely helpful! I do have one question - is there a difference between setting range to "Psalms" or not using that option and simply using Scope "Chapter" [Range Ps 91]? Is that clear? Thanks again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timothy Jenney Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 There will be a difference in how the Analysis graph is displayed, but not in the actual search results Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lprado317 Posted January 29, 2015 Author Share Posted January 29, 2015 Timothy - thanks! Good to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Helen Brown Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 I was asked the same question (by the prof?) and sent an almost identical screenshot, with the addition of a Particle NOT so that all the particles don't get highlighted. I guess great minds think alike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rpavich Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 There will be a difference in how the Analysis graph is displayed, but not in the actual search results I know that this probably won't make any difference because Accordance is so fast, but is there a difference in HOW the software searches in these two instances? Is one more efficient than the other? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Helen Brown Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 I don't think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lprado317 Posted June 14, 2015 Author Share Posted June 14, 2015 It's been some time since I first tried this, but I just realized something: is there any reason why "yōmām" in v. 5 and "yāmîm" in v. 16 are not highlighted in this type of search? Do I have to add "root" into the construct? Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Helen Brown Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 Yes, in this case the lexical forms are different but both come from the same root, so searching by root rather than lexical form would pick them up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lprado317 Posted June 14, 2015 Author Share Posted June 14, 2015 I tried it again, but it still did not work - maybe I'm doing something wrong. Here is a screen shot of my construct: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Simpson Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 (edited) Check out the entire workspace as I have set it up here. Make sure that the RANGE (Red box) and SCOPE (Green Box) are set up as indicated and you should get the result below. As a tweak on this, remove the lexical agreement, so it just agrees by root, and you’ll get many more results - which look legitimate to me anyway. This allows for root forms that share completely different lexemes I assume (Helen, Joel?) As a warning, make sure you don’t do that search on the whole Hebrew Bible. It’s the slowest search I have ever done in Accordance, and it pretty regularly crashes. Edited June 15, 2015 by Ken Simpson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lprado317 Posted June 15, 2015 Author Share Posted June 15, 2015 Ken - thank you for your response. However, I still notice that "yōmām" in v. 5 and "yāmîm" in v. 16 are not highlighted, yet they come from the same root. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lprado317 Posted June 15, 2015 Author Share Posted June 15, 2015 Also, why is "šaday" in v. 1 and "raq" in v. 8 highlighted? They do not occur more than once in the chapter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Simpson Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 (edited) Ok. This is where it gets techo. If you look at the word שַׁדַּי in the analytics you will see: ננ) שַׁדַּי) Almighty, Shaddai = 4 - while it is true that the lexeme that is שַׁדַּי only occurs once, the root is listed as ננ which is shorthand for “not known” so accordance has found the times where these lemmas occur more than once. the other “strange” root that you will find is לל which means it’s a loanword. So you can remove those occurrences by doing this to your construct I’m not sure why יָמִים (v15) and יוֹמָֽם aren’t being flagged. I’ll have a think... maybe someone else will know. They do have different lexemes, but that shouldn’t affect this search. Edited June 15, 2015 by Ken Simpson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Simpson Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 I’m enjoying this! Try this Though this list clearly excludes those words that might occur multiple times, and are tagged as ננ or לל Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Helen Brown Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 The reason יָמִים (v15) and יוֹמָֽם aren’t being flagged is that יוֹמָֽם is a Particle adverb and you are excluding all the particles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Simpson Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 The reason יָמִים (v15) and יוֹמָֽם aren’t being flagged is that יוֹמָֽם is a Particle adverb and you are excluding all the particles. Oh d’oh. Why didn’t I see that. Thanks Helen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lprado317 Posted June 15, 2015 Author Share Posted June 15, 2015 This is great! Thanks Ken and Helen! I'm about to work on a different psalm now - Ps 94 - I'll try all of these suggestions. Thanks again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now