Why does this simple Lexham Syntax search fail?
I am wortking with Lexham Syntactical database in prep for the new resources coming out 
I am trying to do a simple search that seems to fail. If you look at the first diagram here, you will see according to the Lexham Expansions and Annotations Notes, the word περὶ modifies ἐψηλάφησαν (verb) in 1 John 1:1:
So I constructed a simple search to find it and see if other similar constructs exist. I want a prepositional phrase where the preposition (modifies) agrees with a previously adjacent verb:
This search returns 0 results. If I remove the Agreement rule, it finds thousands, including John 1.1, but that's just finding a verb followed by a prepositional phrase/preposition. How do I add the proper agreement rule to find this verse in 1 John 1.1?
By the way, just to show I am not crazy, the same Syntax search in Logos 3 returns 1094 occurrences, and it does find John 1 using a related words Agreement rule:
Thanks!
Comments
-
Beats me...I'd like to know also...I couldn't get anything to work or even look like the structure of the Lexham syntax resource.
Robert Pavich
For help go to the Wiki: http://wiki.logos.com/Table_of_Contents__
0 -
Sorry guys
I've struggled with this but can't get it to work either!
Graham
0 -
Dominick Sela said:
This search returns 0 results. If I remove the Agreement rule, it finds thousands, including John 1.1, but that's just finding a verb followed by a prepositional phrase/preposition.
The secret is always to contain relationships and the Clause is the best starting point (particularly when it is a direct parent!) because your search won't go astray and you don't have to worry about the finer points of the Syntax method until you become more familiar with its results.
I don't know how well it matches your control query (Opentext) but it's a start!
Dave
===Windows 11 & Android 13
0 -
Hi Dave
But the problem seems to be that adding the "Related Words" rule to try and ensure that the preposition relates to the previous word results in zero hits.
Do you know if this is a valid use of "Related Words"?
Graham
0 -
Graham Criddle said:
Do you know if this is a valid use of "Related Words"?
No! I don't use Lexham Syntax much but I tried it in both words without result!
Dave
===Windows 11 & Android 13
0 -
At this point I am not sure Agreement Rules work at all in Lexham, although I am the first to confess I have not used them in Logos 4 before. This is such an easy query in Logos 3. Maybe someone from Logos or anyone using Lexham regularly can chip in and let me know what's wrong or whether this is a bug! Thanks!
0 -
Hi Dominick.
Thanks for the detailed note. I'll be looking into this later today.
Rick Brannan
Data Wrangler, Faithlife
My books in print0 -
Hi Dominick
Rick Brannan said:Thanks for the detailed note. I'll be looking into this later today.
I've looked into it and figured out what was going wrong. I'll take a software update to fix. I've submitted a bug report along with a recommendation for how to handle it.
Thanks again for the detailed description, it really helped.
Rick Brannan
Data Wrangler, Faithlife
My books in print0 -
Great, thanks for your help Rick! I'll look forward to trying out the fix against my queries!
0 -
I noticed this has not shown up yet as a fix in beta 12. Is there any guess as to when this will be updated, will it be in 4.1?
Thanks!!
0 -
Is there any update on this bug, plans to fix etc.? That would be very helpful, thanks in advance!
0 -
Anyone? Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?
0 -
Dominick Sela said:
Is there any update on this bug, plans to fix etc.? That would be very helpful, thanks in advance!
This will be fixed in version 4.2 (Beta 5).
0 -
Thanks to everyone for fixing this one!
0 -
I just tried the first query in this thread, supposedly fixed in beta 5, after upgrading to beta 5, indexing (supplemental indexes exist though), and after a restart of Logos 4. I still get 0 results for a search that returns 1094 in Logos 3. Am I doing something wrong or did I misread that it was fixed in beta 5?
0 -
Hi Dominick
Not sure exactly what's going on, I just created a query mirroring yours and ran it on L4B5, and was successful.
Are you running a saved query (your original v4 you created when starting this thread) or have you deleted that one and created a new query to test this?
I'd recommend deleting your old query and creating a new one.
FWIW, I located 3479 results. Why the difference (your original number was 1094 in LDLS3)? Well, the Lexham SGNT now has data for the whole New Testament.
Try deleting your query and recreating it to see if that solves the issue.
Rick Brannan
Data Wrangler, Faithlife
My books in print0 -
Yes I was running saved queries. I'll try a new one and report back.
0 -
Running a new query produced 3479 results. I never would have thought of recreating the query, thanks Rick!
0 -
Is this a problem still or am I doing something wrong?
I get 3479 for all Passages. If I change it to searching 1 John - 3 John, instead of returning the 25-35 results I see when I search all passages, I get results from many of the books (Col, 1 Th, etc.), and I get 428 results?
0 -
Hi Dominick
Dominick Sela said:Is this a problem still or am I doing something wrong?
I get 3479 for all Passages. If I change it to searching 1 John - 3 John, instead of returning the 25-35 results I see when I search all passages, I get results from many of the books (Col, 1 Th, etc.), and I get 428 results?
Glad we sorted out the one problem.
The other problem sounds like a symptom to a bug that will be fixed in the next update of the database (which should come with the next beta, I think). I'll double-check on Thursday at the office to make sure it's OK.
Thanks for asking & checking,
Rick Brannan
Data Wrangler, Faithlife
My books in print0 -
Thanks Rick, I'll keep an eye here to check things out as the database is updated! I am glad you replied, I was going crazy trying to figure out what I did to cause this :-)
0 -
Dominick Sela said:
Thanks Rick, I'll keep an eye here to check things out as the database is updated! I am glad you replied, I was going crazy trying to figure out what I did to cause this :-)
I just checked this on the updated version of the database that will hopefully go out with the next beta, and had 79 hits.
One question: Is your 1Jn-3Jn range a range that existed already, or did you just create the range? If it previously existed, then perhaps you could try deleting it (see the red circle with an X when you hover the entry in the drop-down?) and then re-specifying the range. Perhaps that will do the trick too.
Rick Brannan
Data Wrangler, Faithlife
My books in print0 -
Rick Brannan said:
One question: Is your 1Jn-3Jn range a range that existed already, or did you just create the range? If it previously existed, then perhaps you could try deleting it (see the red circle with an X when you hover the entry in the drop-down?) and then re-specifying the range. Perhaps that will do the trick too.
I thought of that! Even with a new range (or other ranges), you get hits outside of the specified range.
Rick Brannan said:I just checked this on the updated version of the database that will hopefully go out with the next beta, and had 79 hits.
Thanks Rick, I assume you mean the hits only came in the specified range, none outside the range?
0 -
Dominick Sela said:
Thanks Rick, I assume you mean the hits only came in the specified range, none outside the range?
Yup. Just checked again to make sure.
Rick Brannan
Data Wrangler, Faithlife
My books in print0 -
Rick Brannan said:Dominick Sela said:
Thanks Rick, I assume you mean the hits only came in the specified range, none outside the range?
Yup. Just checked again to make sure.
This range issue had been identified earlier, so it is good to know that a fix is coming.
Dave
===Windows 11 & Android 13
0 -
Rick Brannan said:
I just checked this on the updated version of the database that will hopefully go out with the next beta, and had 79 hits.
FYI, I tried recreating the 1 John - 3 John search that you got 79 hits and I still get 232, with hits reported outside the range of 1 John - 3 John. I assume this fix did not get into this beta after all?
0 -
Dominick Sela said:
FYI, I tried recreating the 1 John - 3 John search that you got 79 hits and I still get 232, with hits reported outside the range of 1 John - 3 John. I assume this fix did not get into this beta after all?
Were there updated resources delivered with the beta? The range issue requires a new version of the resource. I'll check to see if resources (this one in particular) was scheduled to be delivered.
Rick Brannan
Data Wrangler, Faithlife
My books in print0 -
Rick Brannan said:
Were there updated resources delivered with the beta? The range issue requires a new version of the resource. I'll check to see if resources (this one in particular) was scheduled to be delivered.
No, no new resources downloaded, or reindexing. It just loaded beta 6 update.
0 -
The updated resources have just been published: http://community.logos.com/forums/t/25932.aspx
0 -
Thanks Bradley and Rick - it looks fixed to me!!!
0
