Submerged06 Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Hello, I think this is probably a basic question, but: * (under BHS) returns 427,047 results but * <and> [range gen-mal] (under BHS) contains only 310,136. What's the difference? And which is more accurate? ----------------------------------------------------------------------- In a related note, * (under BHS) lists the following identical words: (ענה) ענה־0 to answer = 30 (ענה) ענה־1 to answer = 317 (ענה) ענה־2 to oppress, humiliate; to be afflicted = 79 (ענה) ענה־3 to be occupied = 3 (ענה) ענה־4 to sing, cry = 16 * <and> [range gen-mal] (under BHS) includes only: (ענה) ענה־1 to answer = 195 (ענה) ענה־2 to oppress, humiliate; to be afflicted = 57 (ענה) ענה־4 to sing, cry = 12 Questions: 1) Why doesn't definition #1 and #3 occur in both? 2) What is the difference between #0 and #1 in the first query (both being "to answer" with identical forms). 3) Why does the occurrences listed for #1(195) in the second query have no relation to either of the same gloss in the first query (30 and 317, respectively)? I don't know if this is a bug per se or just a matter of how the queries are meant to function, but it left me scratching my head a bit . Any help would be great. Thanks! - Alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joel Brown Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the issue is that the Hebrew bible uses a different book order from the English Old Testament. If you do Display menu > List All Book Names, you'll see the book order of the Hebrew bible. That shows you that stopping your range at Malachi cuts off Psalms, Job, Daniel, etc, which should explain the different hit count and missing words. To properly do a range for the entire Hebrew bible, you should to * [RANGE gen-2chr]. Hope this helps! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Submerged06 Posted June 28, 2012 Author Share Posted June 28, 2012 (edited) Haha . . . well, that's a bit of a facepalm moment for me. And it solves all of my issues. And I knew the Hebrew order, too. Heh. Well, live and learn . Thanks! - Alex EDIT: Actually, I still have one less (though one of much less consequence) -- namely, question #2 above. For the "*" search (or the one you corrected me with), it still shows two identical glosses for ענה (definitions 0 & 1, both "To answer"). Is there a reason for this or is it just a matter of organization? Edited June 28, 2012 by Submerged06 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anon Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 The differences are between the aramaic and hebrew root. Aramaic is indexed to 0 and Hebrew 1 (when homophones are a contributing factor). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Submerged06 Posted June 28, 2012 Author Share Posted June 28, 2012 Really? That's actually pretty sweet. Are all words with "0" following them from Aramaic roots? Or is that just one subset of the 0 index? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anon Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Yes, all Aramaic (within the Hebrew Bible) is indexed to 0. This enables one to clearly (and easily) define a searchable corpora, yet also take into consideration comparative questions between Hebrew and Aramaic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.c3123c857d1029f98e39c9394adc358d.png)
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now