Clarification and possible bug

[rwrobinson88]

I hoping to start use the syntax searching a lot more that the database is finished. 

 

So, hopefully I don't get annoying asking questions and pointing out bugs if they come up.

 

First of all, I'm working on Galatians 6 and I was wondering if there was something similar to the structure of the predicate clause in verse 1.

 

I created a search of what seems (to me) to be the structure. I'm getting hits back but not Galatians 6:1. I'm hoping someone can tell me why.

 

Here is the predicate phrase I'm trying to search:

 

 

And here is the search I created:

 

 

And here is the results (notice no Galatians 6:1):

 

 

As I looked at the other hits, they seemed to fit the bill but for whatever reason the passage I was basing it off of wasn't coming back. Can anyone give me a reason why this is?

 

Also, I think there might be a bug. If you see the result for Acts 11:4, there is a really long Dependent Adjunct Clause that is cut off in the verse on the left. 

 

 

Just thought I'd point that out also.

 

Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!

[Marco V. Fabbri]

Ryan:

I am looking first into the last question, but I am afraid I don't understand what would be cut off.

I can see to different participial clauses.

In my mind, the first has Ἀρξάμενος as its predicate, and come before the independent predicate ἐξετίθετο; the second come after it and has λέγων as its predicate. The direct speech that follows works as the complement of λέγων.

Would that be ok for you?

 

 

[rwrobinson88]

Yeah. I see what you're saying. In the search I was searching at a higher level though (the dependent adjunct clause)...

 

λέγων· Ἐγὼ ἤμην ἐν πόλει Ἰόππῃ προσευχόμενος καὶ εἶδον ἐν ἐκστάσει ὅραμα, καταβαῖνον σκεῦός τι ὡς ὀθόνην μεγάλην τέσσαρσιν ἀρχαῖς καθιεμένην ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, καὶ ἦλθεν ἄχρι ἐμοῦ·

 

So, I would think that the whole dependent clause would come up in the search. Does that make sense?

[Marco V. Fabbri]

Ryan:

 

as to the first part of your inquiry, I think you did it all correctly, except that you probably removed the default depth=2 in the dependent phrases and clause. With depth=2 I actually find Gal 6,1 (much to my relief).

 

Would you please try on your side and tell me the result?

[Marco V. Fabbri]

Yeah. I see what you're saying. In the search I was searching at a higher level though (the dependent adjunct clause)...

 

λέγων· Ἐγὼ ἤμην ἐν πόλει Ἰόππῃ προσευχόμενος καὶ εἶδον ἐν ἐκστάσει ὅραμα, καταβαῖνον σκεῦός τι ὡς ὀθόνην μεγάλην τέσσαρσιν ἀρχαῖς καθιεμένην ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, καὶ ἦλθεν ἄχρι ἐμοῦ·

 

So, I would think that the whole dependent clause would come up in the search. Does that make sense?

 

Yes, you were searching at a higher level. For the complement of λέγων to show you would need to add a complement to the final adjunct clause. I tried it, and it add the whole Acts 11:5.

The internet is responding very slowly for me today. I probably need to continue tomorrow.

[Λύχνις Δαν]

This is very interesting. I was playing with this. I changed all the depths to 2 again as Marco, you suggested and indeed it find Gal. 6:1 but the verb καταρτίζετε is not highlighted.

 

Trying it rather as Ryan originally had it I found that the problem seemed to be in the adjunct phrase ἐν πνεύματι πραΰτητος. If I remove it then I can find Gal 6:1. But I do not know why.

 

thx

D

[Marco V. Fabbri]

I think that the depth is needed. I don't know why the predicate  καταρτίζετε is not highlighted.

[Λύχνις Δαν]

Ok if I set depth = 2 on the top level Predicate Phrase in the query and leave all the others as depth = 0 it does find Gal 6:1, but the predicate element is matching the verb προλημφθῇ not καταρτίζετε. So that explains how it's finding Gal 6:1 and yet not matching καταρτίζετε.

 

Is this a bug in how the search is being processed ?

 

EDIT : To add more grist to the mill I added a LEX =καταρτίζω element below the Predicate element and then everything works with 0 depths. Of course the query is now severely compromised for generality but this may help suggest what's going on.

 

Thx

D

Edited November 12, 2016 by דָנִיאֶל

[rwrobinson88]

Yes, you were searching at a higher level. For the complement of λέγων to show you would need to add a complement to the final adjunct clause. I tried it, and it add the whole Acts 11:5.

The internet is responding very slowly for me today. I probably need to continue tomorrow.

 

That does work. But it doesn't seem that it should have to do that for v 5 to show up because I'm searching for the whole L(a) so that should show the dependent clause. Do you agree?

[rwrobinson88]

This is very interesting. I was playing with this. I changed all the depths to 2 again as Marco, you suggested and indeed it find Gal. 6:1 but the verb καταρτίζετε is not highlighted.

 

Trying it rather as Ryan originally had it I found that the problem seemed to be in the adjunct phrase ἐν πνεύματι πραΰτητος. If I remove it then I can find Gal 6:1. But I do not know why.

 

thx

D

 

I tried that and 6:1 came back as a hit. It seems like that adjunct phrase has a bug or something. Because it's the exact same depth as the complement and dependent clause following and they are clearly being recognized.

[rwrobinson88]

Ok if I set depth = 2 on the top level Predicate Phrase in the query and leave all the others as depth = 0 it does find Gal 6:1, but the predicate element is matching the verb προλημφθῇ not καταρτίζετε. So that explains how it's finding Gal 6:1 and yet not matching καταρτίζετε.

 

Is this a bug in how the search is being processed ?

 

EDIT : To add more grist to the mill I added a LEX =καταρτίζω element below the Predicate element and then everything works with 0 depths. Of course the query is now severely compromised for generality but this may help suggest what's going on.

 

Thx

D

 

Yep!!

 

You're right. Something has got to be off here. 

 

 

[Λύχνις Δαν]

Ok I'll stop after this but here is a query that addresses the confusion of the verbs and also seems to help with Acts 11:4-5.

 

 

Thx

D

[rwrobinson88]

Yep!!

 

You're right. Something has got to be off here. 

 

Screen Shot 2016-11-12 at 1.22.50 PM.png

 

Screen Shot 2016-11-12 at 1.22.53 PM.png

I just realized I had the final adjunct phrase and dependent clause set at a 2 depth in the screenshot above. But, I changed it to 0 and reran the search and it still came back with the Galatians 6:1 hit.

[rwrobinson88]

Ok I'll stop after this but here is a query that addresses the confusion of the verbs and also seems to help with Acts 11:4-5.

 

sc.jpg

 

Thx

D

 

That isn't giving all of verse 5 in the result as I think it should. 

 

[Λύχνις Δαν]

Ok that's interesting - I forgot that I had increased my context to 2. If you do that then you will see it highlighted. Why it is not displayed as part of the hit at context 0 I don't know. Perhaps a bug.

 

thx

D

[rwrobinson88]

I forgot that I had increased my context to 2.

 

Which component did you change the depth for?

[Λύχνις Δαν]

Not depth - the context slider on the search tab.

 

Thx

D

[rwrobinson88]

ahhh yes. There it is. Awesome. Thanks! 

 

That even works if you take away the depth on the first adjunct dependent clause and the predicate a level below (i.e. it works with my original search if you move the context bar).

 

But, why do you have to move the context bar is the what I think you were saying might be a bug...seems like it.

[Λύχνις Δαν]

Yes Acts is ok that way but dear old Gal 6:1 is gone. So there are two issues : the context slider so that we see each result completely and the predicate confusion in the search. We would need comment from Accordance dev as to whether these are bugs or not.

 

Thx

D

[Marco V. Fabbri]

They look like bugs to me.

[Marco V. Fabbri]

Save perhaps the need to move the context slider, which looks just like an unexpected need for an automatic change

[rwrobinson88]

Can any devs speak to these search issues?

[rwrobinson88]

Bump it up. I'm trying to stay persistent on this one until I hear a response.  

[rwrobinson88]

Do I need to summarize this thread? It seems like no one is responding about the possible issues. 

[Λύχνις Δαν]

It might not hurt or perhaps open a new topic clearly stating just the issues it has distilled down to and referring to this thread for back story.

Of course they have also mostly been out at ETS/SBL for the last week too.

 

thx

D