-
Greetings! I was recently trying to do a syntax search with the Andersen-Forbes database, and when I clicked on anything in the "specifics" column on the right (aside from the general drop down) it would crash the whole software application. This happened with both the clause and segment.
-
Thanks Jeremy!
-
[quote user="Graham Criddle"] Is it relevant at all that Jesus and Ruler are tagged as the object with the church as an indirect object? [/quote] Yeah. I originally thought there might be a tagging error in the semantic data (Semantic Roles) because of the syntax data (Grammatical roles). I think I have seen in previous a previous post(s) that the syntax
-
This is interesting. I see what you're saying. However, to think of the benefactive (The person or thing for which an action is performed or for which something exists or happens) in the text, it almost certainly isn't κεφαλὴν but τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ. Even in Aubrey's chapter where he talks
-
I figured it would probably be helpful to have a screenshot.
-
Greetings, I get the feeling that this is an under-appreciated tool in Logos. However, I love it. It's one of the more thoughtful linguistically robust tools that logos has. I was looking at δίδωμι in Ephesians (reading Mike Aubrey's chapter in Linguistics & Biblical Exegesis where he mentions Paul Danove's work). I wanted
-
Yeah. You do. But again, it would be something like 92.x, not just 92. I am not savvy enough on Excel to figure out just the higher level domain with that exported. If you can tell me how to do that, I would be thankful.
-
I don't know if this can be done. So, I would appreciate if anyone can help me figure out if it is possible. So, I want to see what are the high occurring domains in 1 Corinthians 1:10-4:21. However, I don't want to find the highest occurring subdomains. I know how to find the subdomain
-
Thanks Dave. I understand how to do this. And on macOS, when I do that process it does not remove the category. For example, if I right click and it says agent is checked then I click on agent, it reloads but agent is still there and checked.
-
I don't see any of the semantic roles in your screenshot. Did you have any of those categories in your analysis table? macOS High Sierra 10.13.2 logos 7.12.0.0027
-
In the query above, there is no information for say agent, yet it is shown. So, no, it doesn't seem to be determined by the results (because there are none in my query). My issue is when I try to remove the section without results, they won't go away. I hope that clarifies things.
-
I was trying to look at the semantic roles in the analysis tool. I tried to remove some null categories and add another category. The stimulus category wouldn't come up. The Agent, Benefactive, Goal, Patient, Theme roles wouldn't go away when I tried to remove. This is the search and what the analysis looked like. Again, the issue is the semantic role
-
[quote user="Justin Marr"] Good news: EEC Philippians is on track to be released by the end of the year. To ensure quality, all 500,000+ words have been through several rounds of review and editorial. It’s in great shape and we’re excited to release this volume by Mark Keown. Unfortunately, EEC Jeremiah will not be released this year like
-
I agree with dave, if you are doing what he showed, it's wayyyyy easier to do a morph search. My search above is more helpful that a morph search IMO because it constrains the morphological information to a clause.
-
Here is a high-level search. I was trying to help to get more specific. Hopefully, this at least helps.
-
It's weird to me because a decent amount of the passages he quotes do not have participles following. Another question before putting the query together, you are looking for participles to be in the same clause as the relPRO?
-
I would suggest syntax. However, I have a question about the query. Are you looking for a relative clause with the relPRO as subject? Also, do you want the participle(s) to be immediately after the relPRO or just anywhere in the clause? I'm assuming you are talking about what Cascadia marks as "ADV" (Adverbial function) rather than one that would be
-
I also have no received these new updates and I'm active on LN.
-
[quote user="Dave Hooton"] [quote user="Ryan Robinson"] John 12:6 doesn't fit the bill.[/quote] A Subordinate Clause will include that. This provides both passages + Lk 16:20 : [/quote] The Luke hit seems to work. Even though, when you look at the expansions and annotations of the LSGNT, they have πτωχὸς (appositionally) modifying
-
This is where I think creating the actual syntax search is more helpful. You get a more precise search and you get to learn more about the database as you do it. I think this should work: https://documents.logos.com/documents/53a2676247574bc88a490c1102d8c572 I only got Matthew 5:3 back. John 12:6 doesn't fit the bill.