If I run a morph search for imperfect forms with paragogic Nun in Westminster (@v?i????+S???En), Logos claims to have found 312 results when in fact if I count them I see only 309.
Also it seems that whenever a form is both apocopated and has a paragogic Nun it is not counted. i.e. 1 Sa 2:15 and Job 19:2. (I got this by using Accordance)
Search is unreliable!
I'm going to assume that unless there is some factor such as multiple search terms among the hits the program knows how to count since I don't have the patience to wade through the hits to count them. Job 19.2 was included in my hits, but 1 Sa 2.15 was not due to mis-tagging of the form as apocopated rather than with paragogic nun. I am about to submit a typo report.
Serious Bug: Wrong count in morph search results.
David Knoll
Member Posts: 912 ✭✭✭
If I run a morph search for imperfect forms with paragogic Nun in Westminster (@v?i????+S???En), Logos claims to have found 312 results when in fact if I count them I see only 309.
Also it seems that whenever a form is both apocopated and has a paragogic Nun it is not counted. i.e. 1 Sa 2:15 and Job 19:2. (I got this by using Accordance)
Search is unreliable!
0
Comments
-
David Knoll said:
If I run a morph search for imperfect forms with paragogic Nun in Westminster (@v?i????+S???En), Logos claims to have found 312 results when in fact if I count them I see only 309.
Also it seems that whenever a form is both apocopated and has a paragogic Nun it is not counted. i.e. 1 Sa 2:15 and Job 19:2. (I got this by using Accordance)
Search is unreliable!
I'm going to assume that unless there is some factor such as multiple search terms among the hits the program knows how to count since I don't have the patience to wade through the hits to count them. Job 19.2 was included in my hits, but 1 Sa 2.15 was not due to mis-tagging of the form as apocopated rather than with paragogic nun. I am about to submit a typo report.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
George Somsel said:
I'm going to assume that unless there is some factor such as multiple search terms among the hits the program knows how to count since I don't have the patience to wade through the hits to count them.
Yes well I did and it's wrong. I checked it thrice.
George Somsel said:Job 19.2 was included in my hits
It should have two hits: One for וּֽתְדַכְּאוּנַ֥נִי that Logos is able to find and the other is תּוֹגְי֣וּן which is missed.
George Somsel said:due to mis-tagging of the form as apocopated rather than with paragogic nun
It's both apocopated and with a paragogic Nun.
0 -
David Knoll said:
Yes well I did and it's wrong. I checked it thrice.
It should have two hits: One for וּֽתְדַכְּאוּנַ֥נִי that Logos is able to find and the other is תּוֹגְי֣וּן which is missed.
It's both apocopated and with a paragogic Nun.
I'll have to take your word on the count though I'm at a loss to explain how the computer would make a mistake in the count which should be a rather simple matter (though druggery for a human). You are correct about the 2 instances in Job 19.2 -- I overlooked that. Both the Job passage and the 1 Sa should be retagged.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
George Somsel said:
Both the Job passage and the 1 Sa should be retagged.
Both BW and Accordance have the same database implemented and they have it right so I guess it has something to do with the integration in Logos. Perhaps the two attributes were programmed to be mutually exclusive.
0 -
David Knoll said:
Both BW and Accordance have the same database implemented and they have it right so I guess it has something to do with the integration in Logos. Perhaps the two attributes were programmed to be mutually exclusive.
I don't think so. It's simply wrongly tagged.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
David Knoll said:
Perhaps the two attributes were programmed to be mutually exclusive.
Since this thread was recently linked to, I'll give it some closure. We updated to BHW 4.18, the latest version of the Westminster data (I don't think the 4.20 has ben released yet, though the Alan J. Groves site is down as I write this, so I can't verify, but I am keeping my eyes out for any updates) almost a year ago. For historic reasons, the two attributes were in one field (there was a time when that wasn't a problem, and we didn't catch it when it became one) and the UI didn't handle that properly. We have since teased out apocopation into a separate field, so this should work as you expect in the 4.18.
0
