Merging a morphological search with the AND NOT operator

David Fish

I am already late getting away from my office, and I tried a simple search.

Everyone knows that οἶδα is a perfect tense form that functions differently from most perfect tense verbs.

I did a simple search (Morph Search) of Perfect Active Indicative verbs in NT. I got LOTS of hits with οἶδα, so what I want to do is this: Add an AND NOT instances of οἶδα to that search.

I feel like I SHOULD know how to do it, but I do not.

Of course the simple morph search is done with morph.g:V?AI. I just am not sure how to mix that search with lemmas that are NOT οἶδα.

Ι would be very appreciative of anyone's help.

Graham Criddle

Of course the simple morph search is done with morph.g:V?AI. I just am not sure how to mix that search with lemmas that are NOT οἶδα.

Try morph.g:VRAI NOT INTERSECTS lemma.g:οἶδα

Dave Hooton

I feel like I SHOULD know how to do it, but I do not.

Of course the simple morph search is done with morph.g:V?AI. I just am not sure how to mix that search with lemmas that are NOT οἶδα.

In a morphological, original language, bible the manuscript word and all its attributes (e.g. lemma, morphology, sense, Strong's Number) have the same position in the text. The operator that works on exact position is EQUALS and Graham could have given you morph.g:VRAI NOT EQUALS lemma.g:οἶδα because you don't want that morphology to be at the same position as the lemma.

The INTERSECTS operator generally works with overlapping text or values at the same level  but you can imagine that a lemma and its morphology do overlap (being at the same position) so it works just as well as EQUALS.

If you have a translation with morphology e.g. from an interlinear, the situation changes because a given word could be translated from two or more original language words, where both will have the same position as the translated word. So both EQUALS and INTERSECTS will give more results than an original language bible.