Can someone show me how to build Luke 9:62 construc in both the Opentext.org and the Cascadia?
I have not used the Cascadia graphs very much but I did run this in OpenText. This search returns two results
You will have to forgive the fact that the image is partially cut off at the bottom. I was using my netbook. The only thing that is really cut off is the indication that a noun is the part of speech for the last word.
This is a part of the Cascadia structure for Luke 9:62 - it's a bit of a chore trying to imitate a structure that is likely to be unique and even this sub-structure turned out to be unique (the second Primary Clause)! I prefer OpenText's analysis as the Embedded Clauses (EC) delineate the structure better than Cascadia's hierarchy of clauses.
I used a Terminal Node as a shortcut to the target Word and took further advantage of Cascadia's head-driven approach by specifying the Subject as having an adjectival target.
Without knowing what feature of Luke 9:62 that caught your eye I simplified on Dave's suggestion and came up with this search
It results in Luke 9:62 and Mark 4:31
EDIT: BTW, you might want to change your forum display name so spam bots can't harvest your email address. Here's instructions: http://wiki.logos.com/Changing_Forum_Display_Name
I just realized that doing this with my netbook I missed the second part of this verse in the OpenText graph. I will try to work on that later this evening.
Where do one learn about how to build these type syntax structures?
Firstly by imitation. Learn what features in the Clause Analysis correspond to the terms in the syntax graphs we have prepared.
For more details see http://wiki.logos.com/Setting_up_a_Syntax_Search and A Strategy for Syntax Search
I started building the additional clause I left off of the earlier search in OpenText. The search below returns only Luke 9:62. The problem I am running into is that I cannot seem to account the the predicator at the end of the second clause. When I add it as an IC to the clause I get 0 results. Can one of the Syntax experts out there tell me how the predicator should be accounted for?
Thanks for the help, its been great, God Bless.
Can one of the Syntax experts out there tell me how the predicator should be accounted for?
You were close! Word2 doesn't have to be there, I used it to show the 1st word of the Complement.
Don't ask why the Predicator has to be "Skipping levels"!
Can one of the Syntax experts out there tell me how the predicator should be accounted for? You were close! Word2 doesn't have to be there, I used it to show the 1st word of the Complement. Don't ask why the Predicator has to be "Skipping levels"!
Thanks Dave, I tried my hand at this last night I and I couldn't figure it out. Honestly, I think that the search engine should be able to pick up this verse if the Predictor component was coming off the clause and account for the gap some other way. It just boggles my mind that this is what's needed to catch when lines cross in the syntax graphs. Thanks again for the information, now to figure out how to incorporate it into use.
Can one of the Syntax experts out there tell me how the predicator should be accounted for? You were close! Word2 doesn't have to be there, I used it to show the 1st word of the Complement. Don't ask why the Predicator has to be "Skipping levels"! Thanks Dave, I tried my hand at this last night I and I couldn't figure it out. Honestly, I think that the search engine should be able to pick up this verse if the Predictor component was coming off the clause and account for the gap some other way. It just boggles my mind that this is what's needed to catch when lines cross in the syntax graphs. Thanks again for the information, now to figure out how to incorporate it into use.
Thanks Dave and Kevin for your help. Just when I thought I had OpenText and Andersen Forbes down I ran into this one. I'm glad because it is a chance to learn something else I did not know I didn't know. Sorry Dave, but I do have to ask; why is the predicator subordinate to the gap? Looking at the clause analysis graph I still cannot figure that out. I guess obvious follow up question is how did you know that was the case?
Kevin I will have to admit I felt a little better about my own inadequacy with this one when I read it stumped you as well[:O]
Honestly, I think that the search engine should be able to pick up this verse if the Predictor component was coming off the clause and account for the gap some other way. It just boggles my mind that this is what's needed to catch when lines cross in the syntax graphs.
I've raised this point consistently since L3 days, but Logos appear to be stuck with the database schema that handles "gaps" this way. So it has to be applied to the right node to capture a particular result eg. the Clause Component as opposed to its Head Term. Imagine trying to cover all the possibilities in this structure... you might bother if you had to account for some control results.
I would like the specification of the node in the gap to be simpler eg. an attribute of the CC
Imagine trying to cover all the possibilities in this structure... you might bother if you had to account for some control results.
All it takes is one stray word then to exclude an example from a search!
IMO there is no good reason why this search does not produce Luke 9:62
To get it one must strip the predicator or add the oddly placed gap!
Totally unintuitive and inconsistent with the way the rest of syntax searching operates!
Logos, please revisit the way that the search engine deals with these instances! Oddities like this undermines confidence in the completeness of any syntax search.
And to include the words of the Complement you must position the gap off the Head Term as per my solution!
Available Now
Build your biblical library with a new trusted commentary or resource every month. Yours to keep forever.
