Jump to content

Unexpected search results - Greek


rick hall

Recommended Posts

Hi,

 

I'm doing some searches in GNT-T and am getting some unexpected results.  For example:

 

1. +νόμος_1

    (range is Romans)

    Only returns 6 hits and doesn't include any occurrences of the lexeme νόμος in the results.

 

2. =ὁ <FOLLOWED BY> <WITHIN 1 Words> =νόμος

    (range is Romans)

    Does not return Romans 2:14 (τοῦ νόμου)

 

Am I doing something wrong?

 

Any help would be appreciated.

 

Rick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edit:

I was able to yield what looks like a better result for the second search using a construct (see attached image).

 

post-34673-0-86414600-1508973832_thumb.png

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The root one is weird. Even doing a search for nomos in Romans, picking up one of the hits and searching for the word as root in Romans does not find the entry.

It did the same with Matthew: +nomos picks up Matthew 5.5, 17, 23 but nomos picks up 5.17 and 18 and 7.12.

There should be 100% overlap of the root with the noun. 

 

And similarly I can confirm the tou isn't picked up as a ho with the <followed by> command.

I did the same search but using <within 1 words> and it found it no problems. 

 

I think there is an issue with the <followed by> command that I think the technical people are aware of.

Edited by Douglas Fyfe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I initially thought the root search was only finding verbal variants but that's not quite true as it finds Rom 6:19.

 

But what is does seem to do is find words with more than one root where one of them is νομος. Interestingly the converse search - non-root search for νομος does not find the cases found in the root search.

 

Thx

D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

And similarly I can confirm the tou isn't picked up as a ho with the <followed by> command.

I did the same search but using <within 1 words> and it found it no problems. 

 

I think there is an issue with the <followed by> command that I think the technical people are aware of.

 

 

Whatever issue exists with <followed by> also exists here:

=νόμος <PRECEDED BY> <WITHIN 1 Words> =ὁ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The general thing has been that multiple FOLLOWED BYs in a search command or in some cases a FOLLOWED BY and a WITHIN have had issues. The general recommendation is use construct. I forget the details but it's in the forums in various posts. Refer https://www.accordancebible.com/forums/topic/20779-help-me-figure-out-why-this-search-isnt-working/?do=findComment&comment=100973and https://www.accordancebible.com/forums/topic/21757-why-does-this-search-not-work for some examples.

 

But Rom 2:14 is interesting and suggests either a bug or specific behavioural limitation in that code.

 

If you increase the WITHIN to 3 2:4 shows up like this :

 

Ῥωμαίους 2·14 ὅταν γὰρ ἔθνη τὰ μὴ νόμον ἔχοντα φύσει τὰ τοῦ νόμου ποιῶσιν, οὗτοι νόμον μὴ ἔχοντες ἑαυτοῖς εἰσιν νόμος·

 

This led me to remove the WITHIN entirely leading to this result :

 

Ρωμαίους 2·14 ὅταν γὰρ ἔθνη τὰ μὴ νόμον ἔχοντα φύσει τὰ τοῦ νόμου ποιῶσιν, οὗτοι νόμον μὴ ἔχοντες ἑαυτοῖς εἰσιν νόμος·

 

Now you might as why τοῦ isn't also highlighted. It feels like once the first ὁ is found that no others in the same scope are not considered. I tried a clause scope search but that failed rather dismally too. A simple construct such as you found works a treat though. And if the construct uses WITHIN 2 then you get this for Rom 2:14 :

 

Ρωμαίους 2·14 ὅταν γὰρ ἔθνη τὰ μὴ νόμον ἔχοντα φύσει τὰ τοῦ νόμου ποιῶσιν, οὗτοι νόμον μὴ ἔχοντες ἑαυτοῖς εἰσιν νόμος·

 

The way I look at it is that for these kinds of searches the construct search is the better way to go because of the issues mentioned in other forums topics about the place. It's a bit of a pity that it's like this. I don't know why exactly the two interfaces cannot use the same search code - I assume they are not, or at least not all of it - as it would be nice to be able to specify all these things in command line syntax.

 

Thx

D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for all the responses.

 

Yes, the construct search seems to be working. "Within 2" and "agree in gender, number and case".

 

The root search is the one I'm still having trouble with.  When I try various alternatives, I also get weird results.  E.g. I know there are 74 occurrences of nomos in Romans but I'm trying to find related terms.  So I did the following search which excludes some of the words I'm not looking for:

       *νόμ* <NOT> (=ὄνομα, =γίνομαι, =κληρονόμος, επονομαζω, ἐπαισχύνομαι)

 

This only returned 59 occurrences of nomos.  But when I triple click on nomos in the analysis - it shows all 74 occurrences.  Am I doing something wrong?

 

Thanks again for the replies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rick, triple clicking on a word in the analysis window will search for that word. It is the same behavior as if you had just searched for νόμος. In fact, the search bar should change to reflect this.

 

What were you expecting or maybe, what are you hoping to see when you click νόμος that way?

Edited by jarcher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rick, triple clicking on a word in the analysis window will search for that word. It is the same behavior as if you had just searched for νόμος. In fact, the search bar should change to reflect this.

 

What were you expecting or maybe, what are you hoping to see when you click νόμος that way?

 

 

Hi jarcher,

 

Yes, I was expecting exactly what I got - a search for νόμος that finds all 74 occurrences in Romans.  I mentioned it only because I wanted to confirm that accordance does find 74 occurrences of νόμος in Romans.  But I don't know why the search I described above only found 59 of the occurrences - I expected it to find all of them.

 

See analysis below:

post-34673-0-34469600-1508992745_thumb.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Got it.

 

The reason your other search, "*νόμ* <NOT> (=ὄνομα, =γίνομαι, =κληρονόμος, επονομαζω, ἐπαισχύνομαι)" only returned 59 occurrences is because you removed all verses that have ὄνομα, γίνομαι, κληρονόμος, επονομαζω, or ἐπαισχύνομαι when you used the <NOT> command.

 

This is basically the same as saying, "Show me all verses that have νόμος but <NOT> if the verse contains one of these words".

 

Hope that helps!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok! - that's very helpful, thanks!

 

So how do I exclude those words I'm not looking for without excluding the verses that also have νόμος?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you start by telling me what you mean by related words? Or maybe, describe in more detail exactly what you're trying to find?

 

As a guess, you could do something like..

 

* <AND> *νόμ*

 

This will find all words that are contained in a verse where *νόμ* occurs. You could then use the analysis window to order by count, for example, to find the words that occur most frequently in the same verse as *νόμ*.

 

Other options include using the same search combining it with the <WITHIN X Words> of νόμ to find words that are close in proximity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*νόμ* @ -(=ὄνομα, =γίνομαι, =κληρονόμος, επονομαζω, ἐπαισχύνομαι)

 

The list needs a few others to be removed as an Analysis will show but it's close.

 

Thx

D

Edited by דָנִיאֶל
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, that's helpful, D.

 

Suddenly it makes a lot more sense what Rick is after. :-)

 

Rick, as a note, the @ symbol used in the above search is basically telling us something about the word being searched (not about the verse being searched).

Edited by jarcher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks דָנִיאֶל and jarcher,

 

That's what I was trying to do and now I understand the difference between <not> and @-

 

(and you're right, דָנִיאֶל, I hadn't gotten around to removing all the words to exclude yet - at least now I've got the search command right!)

 

Thanks again,

 

Rick

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the report, everyone.  We'll get these bugs fixed ASAP.  It looks like the root search bug has been there since v10, possibly far earlier than that.  The second bug is a bit more recent, but we'll get these fixed right away.

 

Joel

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, Joel. You guys doing awesome work. Fantastic to have such a responsive organization providing us these important tools.

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...