Concordances with both LXX1 and LXX2

[Glenn Wooden]

I need to produce concordances of books in the LXX modules and include data from both LXX1 and LXX2. I am searching for hapax legomena among the LXX literature and at present the concordances do not take account of the companion module, and so are not accurate. For example: a concordance of Daniel in LXX1 will not include data for the parallel materials in LXX2. More problematic is a concordance of Daniel in LXX2, which includes only comparisons with the other items in LXX2, and thus misses the vast majority of the books in the corpus.

 

Glenn Wooden

[Helen Brown]

I am sorry, there is no way around this except by old fashioned comparison of the two concordances, since these are separate modules are cannot be concorded together.

[RobM]

I am sorry, there is no way around this except by old fashioned comparison of the two concordances, since these are separate modules are cannot be concorded together.

 

Could you also do a series of/connecting of HITS searches/-HITS searches?

[Glenn Wooden]

I am sorry, there is no way around this except by old fashioned comparison of the two concordances, since these are separate modules are cannot be concorded together.

 

Disappointing. They are different modules, but the same corpus. Not only does it involve comparing the two concordances, it also involves a separate series of searches for words not found in the version in LXX1, but found in LXX2.

 

It is the opposite situation to the problem I have encountered with the 1Esdras and Greek Ezra-Nehemiah materials, which, unlike the other alternate-version materials, are in the same module, and therefore cannot be compared in parallel.

 

If there were three modules: LXX (All the corpus), LXX1 and LXX2 (alternate versions), that would solve this particular problem. If you included 1 Esdras in LXX1 and 2Esdras=Greek Ezra-Nehemiah in LXX2, it would be the beginning to solve the other problem.

 

Here's hoping!

[Glenn Wooden]

Could you also do a series of/connecting of HITS searches/-HITS searches?

 

Maybe, which is basically what Helen suggested (if I understand you correctly). But the concordance feature is supposed to alleviate that long labourious process of looking at each word--unless there is a way to do multiple searches.

[Joel Brown]

I'm certainly not the best person to answer this, but wouldn't this work:

 

Tab 1, LXX1:  [COUNT 1]@-[HITS LXX2]
Tab 2, LXX2 Words: *

 

to get all of the hapax in LXX1, accounting for both. Then flip it to get the hapax in LXX2, accounting for both:

 

Tab 1, LXX2:  [COUNT 1]@-[HITS LXX1]
Tab 2, LXX1 Words: *

 

You can then combine the results however you like or Concord them each.

 

I did notice a strange bug in LXX1 when doing this, though. In the second set, HITS on the entire LXX1 doesn't work due to some errors in the book of Daniel. So, if you get a funny error when setting up the second search, try limiting the range of LXX1 to not include Daniel.

 

EDIT: Theres a workaround for the LXX1, instead of searching for *, search for:

*-?(0-9)*

This searches for all words that don't contain hard digits, which are the ones that are causing the HITS problems.

[Glenn Wooden]

I'm certainly not the best person to answer this, but wouldn't this work:

 

Tab 1, LXX1:  [COUNT 1]@-[HITS LXX2]
Tab 2, LXX2 Words: *

 

to get all of the hapax in LXX1, accounting for both. Then flip it to get the hapax in LXX2, accounting for both:

 

Tab 1, LXX2:  [COUNT 1]@-[HITS LXX1]
Tab 2, LXX1 Words: *

 

You can then combine the results however you like or Concord them each.

 

I did notice a strange bug in LXX1 when doing this, though. In the second set, HITS on the entire LXX1 doesn't work due to some errors in the book of Daniel. So, if you get a funny error when setting up the second search, try limiting the range of LXX1 to not include Daniel.

 

EDIT: Theres a workaround for the LXX1, instead of searching for *, search for:

*-?(0-9)*

This searches for all words that don't contain hard digits, which are the ones that are causing the HITS problems.

 

 

Thank you! Alas, the specific book I need the info for is Daniel! I will try it, nonetheless.

[Joel Brown]

The workaround seems to work well for me, allowing a search that seems to give good results. But, to quote LeVar Burton, don't take my word for it!

[Glenn Wooden]

I'm certainly not the best person to answer this, but wouldn't this work:

 

Tab 1, LXX1:  [COUNT 1]@-[HITS LXX2]
Tab 2, LXX2 Words: *

 

to get all of the hapax in LXX1, accounting for both. Then flip it to get the hapax in LXX2, accounting for both:

 

Tab 1, LXX2:  [COUNT 1]@-[HITS LXX1]
Tab 2, LXX1 Words: *

 

You can then combine the results however you like or Concord them each.

 

I did notice a strange bug in LXX1 when doing this, though. In the second set, HITS on the entire LXX1 doesn't work due to some errors in the book of Daniel. So, if you get a funny error when setting up the second search, try limiting the range of LXX1 to not include Daniel.

 

EDIT: Theres a workaround for the LXX1, instead of searching for *, search for:

*-?(0-9)*

This searches for all words that don't contain hard digits, which are the ones that are causing the HITS problems.

 

Joel,

 

I believe that this worked! I made one modification, because my real interest is in the hapax legomena for the LXX corpus that are found in each of OGDaniel (LXX1] and ThDaniel [LXX2]. Your proposal is so much more efficient than I was doing!

 

Here it is for the problematic one:

 

Tab 1, LXX2:  [RANGE Daniel 1-12] <AND> [COUNT 1]@-[HITS LXX1] 
Tab 2, LXX1 Words: *-?(0-9)

 

Do you see any problems with this?

[Joel Brown]

Looks good to me, but I'm not a scholar! The only potential suggestion is to re-add the star at the end of your LXX1 search, so it is:

 

Tab 2, LXX1 Words: *-?(0-9)*

 

You are also using the RANGE command correctly, it seems. Recall that using [RANGE ] filters the results, but does not affect the parameter. So COUNT 1 is finding all hapax in all of LXX2, but only showing the ones that are in Daniel 1-10. If you instead filtered via the Range popup menu, it would be finding the words that occurred once within Dan 1-10, which I don't think is what you are going for.

[Glenn Wooden]

Looks good to me, but I'm not a scholar! The only potential suggestion is to re-add the star at the end of your LXX1 search, so it is:

 

Tab 2, LXX1 Words: *-?(0-9)*

 

You are also using the RANGE command correctly, it seems. Recall that using [RANGE ] filters the results, but does not affect the parameter. So COUNT 1 is finding all hapax in all of LXX2, but only showing the ones that are in Daniel 1-10. If you instead filtered via the Range popup menu, it would be finding the words that occurred once within Dan 1-10, which I don't think is what you are going for.

 

Thank you so much. It is actually the processing of the sequence of the expressions and the boolean logic I am most concerned about at this point. I will work with it a bit more, using your added suggestions to see what that does.