Jump to content

Find roots that appear in only one stem


JVo

Recommended Posts

Hello, after several fits and starts, I'm not able to do precisely what I'm intending and rather than spending a ton of time working this out I thought I would ask for some help. I also could not find the answer in searching through forum spreads so forgive me if this is a duplicate.

 

I would like to find Semitic roots (I say Semitic because I would want to also do this for Syriac and Aramaic and use the answer here as a template) that only occur in one stem, e.g., the Pi''el. I attempted this by searching for a wildcard verb in the Pi''el and then an <AND> with a "NOT" (~) selected with every other stem, which is not only extremely inelegant but also does not seem to be returning correct results.

 

Many thanks in advance for your help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a tricky one, but I found something that at least gets you a lot closer.  I'm going to accomplish this using two tabs.

 

Tab 1: Search for all non-piel verb forms: [VERB -piel]

Tab 2: Search for all verbs, excluding every lexical form found in Tab 1:

[VERB]@-[HITS Tab 1]

(you'll need to tweak the search string of Tab 2 to use the actual name for Tab 1).

See attached pic:

 

Screen Shot 2018-09-15 at 4.50.32 PM.png

 

This gives me a list of 98 different verb forms that only ever exist in the piel.  Now, I think this is pretty close to what you are looking for, but it is done by lexical form, not root.  We can display root, but we can't do the HITS command based on root yet, so I'm not sure how to accomplish this search (if there even is a difference!) by root.

 

I hope this helps!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is great, thanks Joel! I did a search on the Quest II database at the Eep Talstra Center for Bible and Computer and came up with 80 roots used exclusively in the Pi''el in the Hebrew Bible. So, I think your method gets really close and the difference would be attributable to root vs lexical form.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok JVo I may have a plot but you'll seriously want to double check me because I don't have the strength in Semitics to give myself much confidence here.

 

I used BHS as my test text. I used first one tab to find all Non-Piel verbs which I called "Non-Piel Verbs". In another tab on the same text I then did [VERB Piel]@-[HITS Non-Piel Verbs]

 

EDIT: And Joel beat me to it. :)

 

Thx

D

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

Glad this works pretty well for you, JVo.  One thing to point out in your initial search: The command is for combining different forms in the same [scope], which defaults to verse (but can be chapter, book, or other).  So, you really asked Accordance for all Piel verbs that do not have any non-piel verbs in the same verse.  If you really wanted these results, you could have clarified it as: [VERB piel] [VERB -piel], but obviously this isn't what you were looking for.  As Daniel and I note, the '@' with a possible '-' is what you really want for additional positive or negative conditions on a single hit, rather than multiple hits within the same Scope.

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...