Jump to content

Greek Construct – What am I doing wrong?


Julia Falling

Recommended Posts

Hey –

 

I am looking for the places where ἐγώ occurs without there being a finite 1st singular verb in the vicinity – basically, where some form of to be needs to be added to yield grammatical English.

 

Here's the regular search.  While I haven't checked every hit, it gave me the expected outcome.

 

post-330-0-84642900-1464621553_thumb.jpg

 

Wanting to double-check my results, I did a construct search, searching both directions.  Either I've set the thing up incorrectly, or it's the beta.  Figured I'd get a wider audience on this forum.  Where did I goof, please?  In the first hit, I've got a first singular verb within 2 words.  The second hit is soon followed by βαπτίζω.  And look at the number of hits!  376 vs. 44.

 

post-330-0-48884200-1464621875_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Julie,

 

  Try negating the WITHIN rather than the verb ?

  Tried it : that doesn't work but seems to be logically what you want. Not so far found a construct trick that does it.

 

Thx

D

Edited by דָנִיאֶל
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok I can do it with a pair of constructs <OR>'d together.

 

post-32023-0-88090800-1464624431_thumb.jpg

 

Thx

D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't get it, Daniel.  You got more hits than I did, and many of the hits have 1st singular verbs.  Thanks for giving it a go.  I guess I need to give this more thought?

 

Did my first search give me only results where ἐγώ was not followed by a 1st singular verb, or was it bi-directional?  I think the search was actually looking for any 1st singular verbs in the verse.

 

What I really don't understand is why I cannot duplicate in the Construct what I did in "non-Constructed" Accordance search using the <WITHIN> & <NOT> commands.  The Construct search will usually enable us to do more complicated & precise searches.  The two searches should have given results that were very close (or identical?).  Hmm.

 

EDIT:  I had saved that Construct search.  I closed the beta and opened the Workspace in 11.1.6 and got the same result.  So if we have a problem, it's not limited to the beta.  I suspect it's not a problem with Accordance at all but with the understanding of the user?

Edited by Julie Falling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does it work if scope is changed to clause?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Julie,

 

  I haven't time just right now to go over it to check, but could ping me a few examples where a 1st singular verb is closer than 8 words from εγω and I'll check it out. I did a quick scan of the first results before I sent it and they looked ok. I didn't compare with your command line search I must say. I don't expect the counts to be exactly the same but they are way off I notice now so I will have to look further.

 

  The reason I believe that negating the verb is that you are saying within 8 words of εγω I want something that is not a 1st sg verb. That's why I believe that you want to simply negate the WITHIN but negated WITHIN is not supported in this case which I think is a limitation that could helpfully be removed. Of course I could be all wet on this.

 

  I'll check back later and go over my suggestion more carefully.

 

Tx

D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does it work if scope is changed to clause?

 

If I change the Scope to Clause, I get this:

 

post-330-0-14607500-1464633408_thumb.jpg

 

I thought clause was more reasonable, too.

 

When I use Scope > verse, I get 376 hits; Scope > Sentence gives 383.  But neither gives me what I want.

 

Edited by Julie Falling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Julie,

 

  I haven't time just right now to go over it to check, but could ping me a few examples where a 1st singular verb is closer than 8 words from εγω and I'll check it out. I did a quick scan of the first results before I sent it and they looked ok. I didn't compare with your command line search I must say. I don't expect the counts to be exactly the same but they are way off I notice now so I will have to look further.

 

  The reason I believe that negating the verb is that you are saying within 8 words of εγω I want something that is not a 1st sg verb. That's why I believe that you want to simply negate the WITHIN but negated WITHIN is not supported in this case which I think is a limitation that could helpfully be removed. Of course I could be all wet on this.

 

  I'll check back later and go over my suggestion more carefully.

 

Tx

D

 

 

Daniel –

 

There are several with only 1 word between ἐγώ and the verb:

 

Matt 2:8 καὶ πέμψας αὐτοὺς εἰς Βηθλέεμ εἶπεν· πορευθέντες ἐξετάσατε ἀκριβῶς περὶ τοῦ παιδίου· ἐπὰν δὲ εὕρητε, ἀπαγγείλατέ μοι, ὅπως κἀγὼ ἐλθὼν προσκυνήσω αὐτῷ.

 

Matt 5:22 ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι πᾶς ὁ ὀργιζόμενος τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ ἔνοχος ἔσται τῇ κρίσει· ὃς δ᾿ ἂν εἴπῃ τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ· ῥακά, ἔνοχος ἔσται τῷ συνεδρίῳ· ὃς δ᾿ ἂν εἴπῃ· μωρέ, ἔνοχος ἔσται εἰς τὴν γέενναν τοῦ πυρός.

 

 

Matt 5:28 ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι πᾶς ὁ βλέπων γυναῖκα πρὸς τὸ ἐπιθυμῆσαι αὐτὴν ἤδη ἐμοίχευσεν αὐτὴν ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ.

 

Matt 8:7 καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ· ἐγὼ ἐλθὼν θεραπεύσω αὐτόν.

 

I don't know what's 'under the hood,' of Accordance so I have no idea why the Construct Search isn't working as expected.  I had tried negating the WITHIN, too.

Edited by Julie Falling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was a nice logical challenge. It shows up some of the differences between the Entry box search and the Construct. In the Entry box your WITHIN automatically applies in both directions. In the Construct when you choose to search in both directions, you were in effect doing an OR search to find the pronoun either with no verb before it OR with no verb after it.

 

This search works if you eliminate the verb both before and after the pronoun:

 

NegColumn.png

 

In other words, the column can be negative, but you must specify each direction. Obviously with all positive columns you can use the checkbox to switch directions.

 

I confess I needed help with this from the master creator of Accordance.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice tutorial. Thank you. Regarding being all wet - er well - pass the towel !

 

The problem is that the search in one direction includes hits that the search in the other direction would have excluded, and vice versa. But because it's an OR they end up in the final result set. My examples clearly suffer from this problem.

 

Thx

D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you so much, Helen.  That does make sense now that you've explained it.

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...