6 replies to this topic

[joshia]

Is it possible to use the searchbar to find all verses containing at least to of something

(fx containing at least to infinitives)

 

this construct gets things done:

 

But can I do something like this

[COUNT >1]@[VERB infinitive]

 

I know count dosn't work this way - but you get the point.

 

Blessings

    Erik

 

[Joel Brown]

Erik, it sorta depends on what you are looking for.  Your construct search is looking for two VERB infinitives within the same verse, which can easily be done in the search box:

 

[VERB infinitive] <FOLLOWED BY> [VERB infinitive]

 

Now, if you want them to agree on a variety of things (lemma, inflected form, root, etc.), you'll have to use a construct, as the AGREE bubble practically only exists within the construct.  This would look like this:

 

Finally, your search [COUNT >1}@[VERB infinitive] is actually pretty close.  You can do [COUNT 2-100000]@[VERB infinitive] to find infinitive Verbs that occur more than once within your search range.  But, this also might not be what you are looking for.  My guess is what you want is the construct AGREE search, which due to its nature, can only really be built in the construct.

 

Edit: Fixed search logic, as [VERB] <AND> [VERB] will also find hits that only have 1 VERB.

[joshia]

Hi Joel!

Thanks for the reply.

Trying to keep it simple, as I'm helping teaching a bunch of students, the course is planned for bibleworks, but I'm teaching the accordance users.

But since I'm looking for verses that contain at least to infinitives, at not what infinitives are present more than once in the search-range option 3 is invalid.

So I will teach them the [followed by] methond, and the more advanced construct.

 

[Randy Steffens Jr]

Joel, is there anything special about the number 100000 in your example of: [COUNT 2-100000]@[VERB infinitive]?  Would any large number do, as long as it's larger than (or equal to) the frequency of the most often used word in the text being searched?

 

Randy

[Joel Brown]

Randy, you are right, it is just a sufficiently large number.  Obviously, the number may need to be higher if you are dealing with a very very large work, but that can easily be discovered by doing some basic statistics with a '*' search.

[Ken Simpson]

It's always seemed a little strange that we don't have some shorthand way of delineating the maximum number - like (say) a bang (!). Would make little moments like this less prone to error.

[Randy Steffens Jr]

Yes, Ken, I've wondered about that too.  Or how about simply being able to use the less than/greater than symbols in searches? ( <  > )  It would be a very elegant solution.  

 

Any chance we could get functionality like this added to Accordance? 

 

Thanks!

 

Randy