Does "(@RP2N ANDNOT @V??M2)" do it for you?
Graham Criddle: Does "(@RP2N ANDNOT @V??M2)" do it for you?
That isn't the same as NOT(@RP2N BEFORE 1 WORDS @V??M2), as is it will exclude occasions where @RP2N and @V??M2 occur in the same verse but not just before one another. Examples would include Matthew 6:6, 6:9, etc.
I think you'd need something like this: (@V??M2 ANDNOT @RP2N) OR (@V??M2 BEFORE @RP2N) OR (@RP2N BEFORE 2-999 WORDS @V??M2)
Thanks Graham and Mark. Mark's solution yields a different answer than Accordance does with a simple NOT operator from a construct search. When I have a bit more time, I'd like to pick through and understand the differences. I sure wish Logos would drop back and either give us a graphic search engine, or at least modernize and standardize what they have.
Mark Barnes:(@V??M2 BEFORE @RP2N) OR (@RP2N BEFORE 2-999 WORDS @V??M2)
I was interested in this part where both Verb and Pronoun must be in the same verse and comparing it with:-
(@V??M2 AND @RP2N) ANDNOT (@RP2N BEFORE 1 WORDS @V??M2)
Your query includes Jas 2:3 which is correctly excluded by (the nature of) my query; but it also omits Lk 10:37, Phil 2:18 & Jas 5:8. Can you see why?
Dave===
Windows 10 & Android 8
Dave Hooton:(@V??M2 AND @RP2N) ANDNOT (@RP2N BEFORE 1 WORDS @V??M2)
The problem with this query (and, I suspect, with the query Clint used in Accordance) is that it will exclude verses that have two occurrences of @V??M2 — one just after @V??M2, and one that is not after @V??M2.
Luke 10:37 is excluded in your query because σὺ ποίει matches the criteria.
Clint,
In your mind, how should the query handle Luke 10:37? You have "πορεύου καὶ σὺ ποίει ὁμοίως", should it include it because of πορεύου, or exclude it because of σὺ ποίει?
Mark Barnes:Luke 10:37 is excluded in your query because σὺ ποίει matches the criteria.
I originally thought there was an issue with the search engine, but I now see that ALL the omitted passages match the criteria; so the results just illustrate the frailty of any ANDNOT query.
Clint Cozier:I sure wish Logos would drop back and either give us a graphic search engine, or at least modernize and standardize what they have.
There really is no "easy" way to run exclusionary searches like this one in Logos. Whenever I want to run something like this, I always go to a syntax search as it allows you to do everything you can do with a morph search, plus quite a bit more. This would be the closest thing to a graphical search query in Logos at present. When done right, it renders some really awesome results. (But even then, I always wonder if I am missing something)
Here is how I structured the query:
This is set up to find every clause where both a subject and verbal function exist, but the subject does not contain a second person pronoun in the nominative case and the verbal function contains a second person imperative. It also will find all the places where a verbal function exists without a subject where the verbal function contains a second person imperative. I also set the search to highlight the verb in each to make it easier to spot in the results.
I only spot checked Matthew, but it looks to accomplish exactly what you are looking for. One particular result that a morph search using proximity operators would not find is Matthew 14:28. This verse has a second person pronoun in the nominative case that precedes the second person imperative verb by only 2 words. The syntax search properly recognizes that these are members of separate clauses, thus showing a positive search result. Pretty cool if you ask me. =)
Hope this helps.
Free Logos Tutorials on YouTube: Digital Bible Study Made Easy
Mike Meiser:The syntax search properly recognizes that these are members of separate clauses, thus showing a positive search result. Pretty cool if you ask me. =)
Yes, it is.
Mike,
The problem I have with a syntax search is that I'm limited to searching the New Testament. If I can use a morphological search, I can check my work against the LXX and various collections of Greek writers. I'm sure the syntax search gets a much better answer, but it works with a much smaller corpus.