How to search all aorist indicative in NA28?

[Gnade]

I was wondering if it is possible to search for all aorist indicative occurrences in NA 28.

I am a new user on using Accordance, and it will be great if someone can give me instructions step by step on doing this search. Thanks in advance for help!

[Fabian]

For a new user it is best you go to the Helpfiles. On the Startpage you see on the right side "Greek and Hebrew Searches" then "Search with Grammatical tags", "Use the [ANY ?] tag. http://accordancefiles2.com/helpfiles/OSX12/Default.htm#topics/06_braa/search_with_grammatical_tags.htm And then you need to connect this

 

 

So at the End  [ANY aorist] @ [ANY indicative] find all words as Aorist that are also indicative.

 

Am besten du schaust dir auch die Videos von Dr. J. an. https://www.accordancebible.com/Lighting-The-Lamp-Podcasts

Edited March 7, 2017 by Fabian

[Helen Brown]

This simpler search works as well:  [ANY aor indic]

[Fabian]

This simpler search works as well:  [ANY aor indic]

 

Thanks

[Gnade]

Thanks! Your reply helps me a lot! 

[Gnade]

I just realise that the results are different when I use the different search command.

When I use [ANY aorist] @ [ANY indicative], which suggested by Fabian, there are 5927 hits. 

And when I use  [ANY aor indic], which suggested by Ms Brown, the result is 5917 hits. 

Could any one confirm to see whether this is only my searching problem or you have the same problem as well?

Why are the results different?

Thanks!

[Helen Brown]

Interesting! I did both searches and then compared the contents with this search in a third tab:

 [CONTENTS NA28 Greek NT 2] [CONTENTS NA28 Greek NT]

 

Then I selected all 6 verses which appear in Fabian's search but not mine, and parsed them. Then set the parsing to show only verbs. The result seems to show that the issue lies in variant tagging. [ANY aor indic] does not find cases where one variant is aorist and the other is indicative, but [ANY aorist] @ [ANY indicative] apparently does, and I believe that will explain all the discrepancies.

 

Here is the first example from Matt 27:22:

ποιήσὠ       ποιέω    Verb first singular aorist active subjunctive
       -           ποιέω    Verb first singular future active indicative:

[Fabian]

I have tried also with the  [HITS NA28 Greek NT] <NOT> [HITS NA28 Greek NT 2], for Lexical, words and the 3 one (Auszeichnung in German), but got not the 10 differences. 

 

Is this not possible or do I something wrong?

 

Greetings

 

Fabian

[Λύχνις Δαν]

Try CONTENTS not HITS in your difference query.

 

thx

D

[Fabian]

Try CONTENTS not HITS in your difference query.

 

thx

D

 

But as CONTENTS I have only the different Verses, not the HITS itself.

 

Thats not logical in my opinion. Since it is the same Text with nearly the same search string it should bring the same HITS. If not the HITS command should show me the different hits. 

Maybe there is a bug too or a developer can explain why?

 

Greetings

 

Fabian

[Joel Brown]

This is not a bug, just a rare edge case that highlights the difference between a tag and a word. In the cases of variant tags, there are two separate tags applied to the same word. Searching [ANY aor indic] finds tags that are both. Searching [ANY aor]@[ANY indic] finds words that are both. The latter distinction actually allows one to find variant words, which wouldn't be possible otherwise. However, the HITS commands is a words, not tag based, search, which is why your comparison didn't work.

 

This is not a bug, but I hope this helps explain why there are differences.

[Fabian]

This is not a bug, just a rare edge case that highlights the difference between a tag and a word. In the cases of variant tags, there are two separate tags applied to the same word. Searching [ANY aor indic] finds tags that are both. Searching [ANY aor]@[ANY indic] finds words that are both. The latter distinction actually allows one to find variant words, which wouldn't be possible otherwise. However, the HITS commands is a words, not tag based, search, which is why your comparison didn't work.

 

This is not a bug, but I hope this helps explain why there are differences.

Thanks, so the Hits by the HITS Command are not related to the bold red letters. That mean it does't compare the visible output from one Text to another. Right?

 

Greetings

 

Fabian

[Λύχνις Δαν]

Ok one more thing to toss into the mix. If you do [VERB aorist] and [VERB indicative] both counts go up by 1.

I see Joel has answered this so I'll just add this.

 

This will highlight the hits for you in the CONTENTS query:

 

( [CONTENTS NA28 at query] <NOT> [CONTENTS NA28 one query] ) <AND> ([VERB aorist]@ [verb indicative] )

 

The problem with using HITS is that you get the list of hit words in the first query result and then remove the hit words from the second query result and then search for those words. There are two words in the analysis of the [VERB aorist]@ [verb indicative] query which do not appear in the [VERB aorist ind] query. They are κληρονομήσουσιν and παραζηλοῦμεν. That's what your HITS based query then searches for.

 

Thx

D

[Gnade]

Sorry, I am quite lost.

What is the meaning of ‘a tag’?

Say, if I want to know the total occurrence of the aorist indicative, what should I do?

Is there any way to look at the frequency of all the occurrences?

Thanks!     

[Λύχνις Δαν]

Oooops sorry about that.

 

The simplest way to get the correct answer is [verb aorist indicative].

I just checked it against [ANY aor indicative] and in my case I get 5918 not 5917 for both searches. Is it possible you are searching the UBS5 module ? There I get only 5917 hits.

 

I don't know what you mean by "frequency" of occurrences. Could you explain a bit more what you are after ?

 

Thx

D

[Jonna Schmidt]

Hi: I am late to the discussion, but I have a kind of related questions: Is there a way to search for all periphrastic forms in the GNT?

[Λύχνις Δαν]

Hey Jonna,

 

  If you have the syntax module you might try variations from this :

 

 

  Things to play with :

 

  1. ειμι is not the only verb which forms periphrastics

  2. I notice some cases where in place of the complement clause there is an adjunct clause, so that would have to be checked. You cannot select a list of clause types to capture these in just one query. Would be a nice enhancement.

  3. I am not permuting the order of the verb and participle which might be useful.

 

Thx

D

[Jonna Schmidt]

Thanks for your help! 

I have the syntax module, but I don't understand it very well. I will go back and re-do Dr. Jay's lectures on the Syntax module. 

You gave me some pointers for getting started.

Question: in my BBG Chapter 30.15: Dr. Mounce (my instructor) states that the periphrastic includes ειμι: in present tense, imperfect, or future. Is that what you meant? Or... am I getting a very simplified version in BBG?

 

30.15 Here are all the different forms a periphrastic construction can take. The form of εἰμί and the participle can be separated by several words.

periphrastic tense construction

Present present of εἰμί + present participle

Imperfect imperfect of εἰμί + present participle

Future future of εἰμί + present participle

Perfect present of εἰμί + perfect participle

Pluperfect imperfect of εἰμί + perfect participle

Future perfect future of εἰμί + perfect participle

[Λύχνις Δαν]

Hi Jonna, 

 

  I would say that eimi is likely the only thing you would have to worry about, but Herbert Weir Smyth says that it can occur with ekw also, with the perfect.

 

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0007%3Apart%3D2%3Achapter%3D19%3Asection%3D51

 

b. For the perfect active a periphrasis of the aorist participle and ἔχω is sometimes used, especially when a perfect active form with transitive meaning is lacking; as στήσα_ς ἔχω I have placed (ἕστηκα, intransitive, stand), ἐρασθεὶς ἔχω I have loved. So often because the aspirated perfect is not used, as ἔχεις ταράξα_ς thou hast stirred up. Cp. habeo with the perfect participle.

 

I have not I confess done a full analysis of this and I do not know if such a case exists in the GNT.

 

  As to the syntax module, it takes some getting used to. It is worth working through the document Dr. Holmstedt provided with worked examples. They are not Greek though. My construction does not take account of the correlation of the various forms of eimi and the participle so it could be tightened up. I can have a look at a few modifications to the query I gave later on.

 

Thx

D

[Λύχνις Δαν]

Hi Jonna,

 

  I've gone through this and tightened things up a bit to capture those forms. Without going through it further and opening up the search, particularly the depth setting I would not say I had found them all, and indeed there may be false positives in there also. I have attached the workspace for you to see. I note this in BBG though :

 

31.22    Perfect subjunctive. The perfect subjunctive occurs only ten times in the New Testament. All ten are forms of οἶδἀ There are other examples of the perfect subjunctive but they are all periphrastic.

William D. Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar, 3d; Accordance electronic ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010), 297.
accord://read/Mounce_Greek_3#7001

 

This is curious given his remarks elsewhere. But it appears that here he is not referring to the NT but outside it. He refers to Fannings Verbal Aspect which I don't have so I cannot check further on this.

 

JonnaPeriphrastics.accord.zip

 

Thx

D

[Gnade]

Is it possible to search the number of occurrences of present, imperfect, aorist and perfect of all the verbs (or of a particular verb) in NA 28?  

Thanks in advance! 

[Helen Brown]

Your would search for [VERB], possibly specifying lexical forms using the @ symbol. Then Open the Analysis and Set Analysis Display and choose to sort and display the first column, not by LEX but by Tense.

 

[Gnade]

Thank you for your help! 

 

I would also like to search all the aorist indicative verbs, which do not have the imperfect indicative form in NA28.

I try to use this command: [any aorist indicative] <AND><NOT> [any imperfect indicative]

But it seems the result is not correct. 

Any suggestion?

 

Thanks!

[Helen Brown]

Your use of is wrong. First, implies so you don't need the latter, and xy means any verse (or other scope) that has x but does not have y in the same verse.

 

My answer in this recent topic should give you the clue. You must find and exclude all the imperfect indicative forms using the HITS command.