Any suggestions to make the search more accurate?
I'm trying to find all the clauses where את is the direct object of hiphil-קדשׁ (e.g., Isaiah 8:13)
This is what I came up with; I get 13 results:
LXXI
I get 16 results if I have "Matching Skips Levels" checked on both segment 1 and phrase 1
Try “infinite verb” w/direct object, or finite verb w/”indirect object” and see what this gets.......
Brian Davidson: Any suggestions to make the search more accurate? I'm trying to find all the clauses where את is the direct object of hiphil-קדשׁ (e.g., Isaiah 8:13)
For Syntax Search, personally like to open clause visualization, then create syntax search with similar structure:
Keep Smiling
Logos Wiki Getting Started Logos 5 Beta
Hi Brian.
You can open up an existing template to see how to search for a direct object. There are a few different ways to specify it; this does not include searching in association with a verb; you'd need to modify to get there.
Anyway, after File, New, Syntax Search; look on the right hand side of the syntax search document for available templates. Find "Direct Object". When you do, you'll see this wonderful structure of possibilities:
My guess is that you'd need to start to modify from here.
Disclaimer: I put this together for the templates shipped with Andersen-Forbes, but I did it before Logos 4 initially shipped. I've since forgotten everything I ever knew about Andersen & Forbes' analysis. So I probably can't explain why something is the way it is above, but it is likely that way for a very good reason.
Rick BrannanLogos Bible Software http://logos.comCore Texts Lead, Content Innovation
Thanks for all the help guys. Rick, I tried modifying that complex search; the search ran all night and never generated anything :-)
GOOD NEWS: The following search produces accurate results:
"Matching Skips Levels" is checked only on Segment 1. You should get 33 results.
How I can say this search is accurate:
First, I went through every instance of hiphil-קדשׁ myself and classified each occurrence according to the number of complements the verb takes. Then, I ran the above syntax search to check myself with Andersen-Forbes. I sorted through each of the passages where my results differed from theirs and found that each difference was due to the fact my classification was based on "deep structure" (the sentence structure of the matrix clause), theirs on the surface structure (the way the text as it stands is structured).
This database is very helpful. I'm just starting to dip into it.