Morphology help / challenge

Page 1 of 2 (38 items) 1 2 Next >
This post has 37 Replies | 3 Followers

Posts 9947
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Posted: Mon, Dec 7 2009 7:21 AM

I'm still working on Gen 4.8 and the phrase וַיָּ֥קָם קַ֛יִן אֶל־הֶ֥בֶל.  It's not as though I don't understand what it means, but I am now attempting to use this passage to test L4 morphology searches.  If I enter

[קום=v??????+S???E?J?C?V?] before 5 words [‪אֶל‬{P (WTS)}=Pp+S???E?]

in L3 I get 38 verses.  In L4 I get nothing.  I have tried

lemma:קוּם@v BEFORE 5 words lemma: אֶל@p

which seems like a logical search string.  Perhaps someone else can succeed in this. 

Bring back the check-boxes !

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

Posts 687
Jon | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Dec 7 2009 8:03 AM

Hi George,

I constructed your search by typing the following:

h:qum click lemma for stand, get up @V BEFORE 5 words h:al click lemma for to @P

It ends up looking like this:

 

You can refine the morphology by clicking on the popup options after @, which isn't so different for ticking the boxes...

Posts 9947
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Dec 7 2009 8:23 AM

Jon Rumble:

Hi George,

I constructed your search by typing the following:

h:qum click lemma for stand, get up @V BEFORE 5 words h:al click lemma for to @P

I have the same search string, but it doesn't work for me.  Perhaps it doesn't like my computer.  The only difference is that I refuse to type in the Hebrew (or Greek) phonetically -- I'll stick to L3 first. Bring back the check boxes.  I hate this.

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

Posts 418
davidphillips | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Dec 7 2009 8:41 AM

George,

This time I can agree. I've found problems with Hebrew searching in the past, particularly where the lemma involves numerals or letters that precede or follow the actual lemma (as in this case). I get 0 results for this as well. However, to be fair, I don't think the issue has anything to do with checkboxes as checkboxes. The click-selector is functional. It's something else that's a problem that is causing your searches to routinely fail (and apparently mine to sometimes fail). I was able to get the search to work using the following:

 

But, the search fails if I change the resource to BHS 4.2:

 

So there appears to be two issues here. One with the lemma selector, the other with BHS 4.2

Posts 9947
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Dec 7 2009 9:00 AM

David B Phillips:

George,

This time I can agree. I've found problems with Hebrew searching in the past, particularly where the lemma involves numerals or letters that precede or follow the actual lemma (as in this case). I get 0 results for this as well. However, to be fair, I don't think the issue has anything to do with checkboxes as checkboxes. The click-selector is functional. It's something else that's a problem that is causing your searches to routinely fail (and apparently mine to sometimes fail). I was able to get the search to work using the following:

 

But, the search fails if I change the resource to BHS 4.2:

 

So there appears to be two issues here. One with the lemma selector, the other with BHS 4.2

This method is subject to too many vagaries.  With a check-box it's either checked or it's not checked.  I don't think it has anything to do with 4.2 since that is what I routinely use -- also in L3.  I tried changing to the "generic" BHS with Westminster morph without success in L4.  Check boxes work 1st time every time.

BTW:   I tightened this up to within 2 words since I was getting too many hits with a second verb.  Even with 2 words I get cases of an impv of קום followed by a  2nd impv when אֶל should go with קום rather than the 2nd impv.

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

Posts 709
Russ Quinn | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Dec 7 2009 9:16 AM

David B Phillips:

So there appears to be two issues here. One with the lemma selector, the other with BHS 4.2

David,

Not sure why but I get the following results:

Posts 3810
spitzerpl | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Dec 7 2009 10:22 AM

George Somsel:
So there appears to be two issues here. One with the lemma selector, the other with BHS 4.2

Without reading things too carefully, in one search string (yours) the @v and @p is lowercase. in the successful search presented @V and @P are upper case. Is this causing your problem?

EDIT: Keep in mind some resource morphologies use upper case, some use lower case, and some use a combination of both. So if you change the resource you are searching, you also break your morphology search string. At least this is what I have found to be true.

Posts 418
davidphillips | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Dec 7 2009 10:31 AM

Philip,

In this instance it doesn't seem to be an issue of lower case vs. upper case.

Posts 3810
spitzerpl | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Dec 7 2009 10:40 AM

David B Phillips:

Philip,

In this instance it doesn't seem to be an issue of lower case vs. upper case.

That will teach me to stick my nose in waters I'm not willing to test :-)

Posts 9947
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Dec 7 2009 10:47 AM

Philip Spitzer:

George Somsel:
So there appears to be two issues here. One with the lemma selector, the other with BHS 4.2

Without reading things too carefully, in one search string (yours) the @v and @p is lowercase. in the successful search presented @V and @P are upper case. Is this causing your problem?

EDIT: Keep in mind some resource morphologies use upper case, some use lower case, and some use a combination of both. So if you change the resource you are searching, you also break your morphology search string. At least this is what I have found to be true.

No.  Both upper and lower case fail equally.  Bring back the check-boxes.

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

Posts 418
davidphillips | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Dec 7 2009 11:05 AM

Philip Spitzer:
That will teach me to stick my nose in waters I'm not willing to test :-)

Not at all! It's always good to give it a go. After all, you never nose...

George Somsel:
No.  Both upper and lower case fail equally.  Bring back the check-boxes.

Ok, I could be off base here, but I'm pretty sure the check boxes are just a graphical UI. The current click boxes are just a graphical UI. The problem isn't that we're clicking instead of checking, the problem is that there's a problem in the actual underlying system. They could change the UI to checkboxes and the same problem would exist. The reason L3 works isn't because you're checking boxes, it's because the underlying system is more stable at the moment. Or am I misunderstanding your complaint?

Posts 3810
spitzerpl | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Dec 7 2009 11:12 AM

George Somsel:
No.  Both upper and lower case fail equally.  Bring back the check-boxes.

I know this breaks your heart, and perhaps goes against your faith, but does it work if you type the Greek and Hebrew phonetically and select from the list?

Posts 2521
Forum MVP
John Fidel | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Dec 7 2009 11:13 AM

George, 

As an alternative to the checkboxes, what if our selections remained highlighted.. same thing, but works better in the newer dialog box.

Posts 493
Brian W. Davidson | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Dec 7 2009 11:14 AM

I would like to see something like the check boxes brought back as well.

Posts 418
davidphillips | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Dec 7 2009 11:14 AM

Russ Quinn:

Not sure why but I get the following results:

Russ,

That's quite odd. Hopefully this will be fixed in the near future.

Posts 656
Jeremy | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Dec 7 2009 11:18 AM

George Somsel:

Bring back the check-boxes!

I totally agree! I shouldn't have to know computer language in order to use the morphological search. In this regard, Logos 4 is not simpler than Logos 3.

 

Posts 418
davidphillips | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Dec 7 2009 11:33 AM

JeremyEllis:

I totally agree! I shouldn't have to know computer language in order to use the morphological search. In this regard, Logos 4 is not simpler than Logos 3.

Just to be sure, you guys know that if you type @ it brings up a morph selection screen, right, and that you can click on your choices with the mouse? This can be done with or without specifying a lemma. The "computer language" appeared in L3 as well in the morph search when you clicked "add to search"

Posts 9947
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Dec 7 2009 11:38 AM

Philip Spitzer:

George Somsel:
No.  Both upper and lower case fail equally.  Bring back the check-boxes.

I know this breaks your heart, and perhaps goes against your faith, but does it work if you type the Greek and Hebrew phonetically and select from the list?

I don't know.  I don't care.  I won't try it.  If it won't work when I type in Greek or Hebrew then it won't work and I''ll use L3.

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

Posts 3810
spitzerpl | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Dec 7 2009 11:42 AM

George Somsel:
I don't know.  I don't care.  I won't try it.  If it won't work when I type in Greek or Hebrew then it won't work and I''ll use L3.

I had a feeling you'd say something like this :-)

Posts 9947
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Dec 7 2009 11:43 AM

David B Phillips:
Ok, I could be off base here, but I'm pretty sure the check boxes are just a graphical UI. The current click boxes are just a graphical UI. The problem isn't that we're clicking instead of checking, the problem is that there's a problem in the actual underlying system. They could change the UI to checkboxes and the same problem would exist. The reason L3 works isn't because you're checking boxes, it's because the underlying system is more stable at the moment. Or am I misunderstanding your complaint?

I would agree with that in principle.  The problem is that the underlying code is either faulty or it is too demanding on typing in everything in a precise form (Upper case vs. lower case for example with respect to proximity operators).   On the other hand, a check-box is a check-box is a check-box.  Bring back the check-boxes and the underlying code. 

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

Page 1 of 2 (38 items) 1 2 Next > | RSS