Possible Bug: Syntax Search Result

Hello Syntax-Search gurus!

I constructed the attached search with the following result:

The result seems to be pulling the order with the conjunction first rather than the clause first, perhaps due to the "crossed" graph structure having an out-of-order text. Interestingly it does not pull Gal 2:10, which does have the structure I was trying to find. Is this a bug, or am I doing something wrong?

My line of inquiry came from this thread on Syntax Searching:

https://faithlife.com/comments/583563?utm_source=notifications&utm_medium=email&utm_content=faithlife-notification&utm_campaign=faithlife

As such, I saw Mike Meiser's construction using a "negative" construction...but it seems to me the structure should be able to be found with a "positive" construction as well.

Thanks in advance,

Mike

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Ryan Robinson

No bug.

Your issue in the "match skip levels" on the first verbal clause.

Embedded within the ADV is a verbal clause (CL -> V -> ἐρχόμενον).

I don't have tons of time. So, hopefully that makes sense. Let me know if you need clarification.

Mike Hogue

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/821022#Comment_821022

Thanks Ryan.

The embedded clause still appears after the ἱνα in the tree structure, so I think I disagree with you, but am still open to correction. Why would it pull that one when the "conj" is clearly before the clause that contains the embedded clause in the "ADV" in the tree structure??!

When I undo "matching skips levels" I get zero results, which still doesn't make sense.

Ryan Robinson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/821025#Comment_821025

It does make sense because you are skipping that level of CL.

It is looking for any verbal clause that would come before the ἱνα. The hierarchical structure (CL that comes after the ἱνα) is being discarded because of "matching skips levels".

Let me know if that doesn't make sense.

Mike Hogue

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/821031#Comment_821031

Wait...skipping levels suddenly means that the lines don't apply anymore? i.e. skipping levels produces a situation where the lines drawn to that point are ignored? That seems counter-intuitive, does break the order of the structure, and I would submit should be considered a design flaw or a bug. The order, even with "matching skips levels", should be the structural level for a syntax search...not word order. Your explanation does explain the result, though.

This leads me to another question:

If I reverse the order and undo "matching skips levels" it doesn't catch Acts 19:4...why? There is an immediate clause with the conjunction and a verbal clause underneath it. Removing the "anything" doesn't change the results.

Ryan Robinson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/821038#Comment_821038

Matching skips levels means I'm looking for X anywhere within a clause. Thus, why that was happening in the last search

To speak to why it wasn't getting it with the new search. (This is a terrible picture. All I have to work with at work.)

Mike Hogue

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/821069#Comment_821069

Not to continue being dense, but when I mouse over the "CL*" for that node it shows that it is a verbal clause. Why are you saying it isn't?

Ryan Robinson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/821080#Comment_821080

You aren't being dense. I had a brain fart. You're right. It is a verbal clause. And this in fact is a bug! I've noticed this in the past and forgot about this.

It has to do with the ADV clause that is fronted and it being embedded within a clause that is actually after the ἵνα. The crossing over arrow kinda messes things up.

I'd encourage reporting this as a bug. I doubt it will go anywhere since syntax search isn't very prioritized for Faithlife from what I'm seen (that isn't a jab just an observation).

Ryan Robinson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/821080#Comment_821080

I love having these conversations about Syntax Searching. It is an amazingly powerful tool that too many don't know how to utilize.

Mike Hogue

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/821141#Comment_821141

Thanks Ryan - I appreciate you engaging on this.

I agree that it is powerful...it just doesn't always seem to give the results it should.

Do you know how to go about submitting this as a bug?

Ryan Robinson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/821147#Comment_821147

it just doesn't always seem to give the results it should.

What other issues have you had? This is the only one that I've run into that really has caused issues.

Do you know how to go about submitting this as a bug?

I think you'd just have to put it under "logos 6" and put BUG or something.

Mike Hogue

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/821150#Comment_821150

https://faithlife.com/comments/345154

Ryan,

Here's another thread with another problem, and it seemed that unless everything was defined at the same level, the search didn't work. Several (including you) said "I don't know why..."

Mike

Ryan Robinson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/821156#Comment_821156

Alright. I think I got it. It has to be like this:

Reason being is the asterisk shows that there only ONE head word (e.g. in Matthew 7:26 it is ἀκούων). So, in order to have two different participles you have to go down another level as shown in the search query.

Let me know if this still doesn't make sense.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/821147#Comment_821147

I agree that it is powerful...it just doesn't always seem to give the results it should.

You would understand better if you highlighted the results for the subordinate clause (red border) rather than the containing clause, as below

Then you will see that the conjunction (immediately) follows it as requested.

For Gal 2:10 the conjunction is embedded in the Verbal clause; which requires a somewhat convoluted query involving Gap. But it follows the Object function.

You don't really need Anything for this query.

Michael Meiser (Faithlife)

As such, I saw Mike Meiser's construction using a "negative" construction...but it seems to me the structure should be able to be found with a "positive" construction as well.

I noticed my name being evoked, so I thought I would weigh in. When we are dealing with postpositive conjunctions like δε, and in this instance ινα, most syntax queries are not adequate to find these instances. What we have here, as Dave hinted at in his post, is a case of the dreaded "gap."

In Acts 19:4, it seems logical that the terminal node immediately precedes the verbal clause from the clause visualization. However, this is not how the computer understands the syntax tree in this situation. In reality, the terminal node is neither preceding nor following the verbal clause, even though visually it appears that way. There is a trump card being played here known as a "gap." You can identify gaps visually by intersecting clausal lines. See highlighted image below.

In essence, the terminal node is in fact buried within the verbal clause even though it is not technically a part of the clause. For instance, here is the search syntax for finding this particular instance of ινα.

If we look at the search results, notice that the word ινα is not highlighted with the rest of the clause.

I think the short answer to your question is that this is not a bug. I am in no way saying that this is the clearest way to represent what is going on with the syntax of this verse, rather, these are the rules that the database has been constructed to follow. (BTW, I didn't build this sandbox, I just like to play in it.) ;-)

Luckily, most of these are outliers to the majority of searches we run. I'm hoping that by this explanation I can help you understand a bit more how to play by the rules of the game as opposed to what "seems" to be the right way. I am open to being proven wrong on any of this as most of these details were arrived at by my own deductions and trial and error over time.

Mike Hogue

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/821217#Comment_821217

Thanks Mike - great explanation. I notice also that this "gap" search also catches Gal 2:10...

This is definitely counter-intuitive...namely that the actual structure as understood by the computer has the ἱνα inside a gap in the clause when the picture looks different. The in-program documentation for gaps is somewhat cryptic -- "Gap allows searching within the “gaps” that occur in non-continuous constructions;"

Per the thread above...I guess the implication is that "matching skips levels" really doesn't throw out the lines on the graph...it's just that with "gap" constructions (wherever there are crossed lines) the lines on the graph don't really represent what is going on.

How would the computer view Matt 11:7? (not the postpositive δε, but the other gap). Why is τί considered part of the gap?

Ryan Robinson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/821234#Comment_821234

Mike M.

Awesome explanation. That was super helpful in understanding that. This always makes me think about how there is no documentation out for these things and I scratch my head not understanding why.

Mike H

When you say "in-program documentation" what are you referencing?

Thanks!

Ryan Robinson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/821217#Comment_821217

I'm also noticing this could of been a lot easier search for the question from the Faithlife group. There are only to false hits (2 Cor 2:5 and 1 John 5:13).

I'm guessing the only reason you didn't go for this, Mike, is it isn't as safe to be exactly what he was looking for?

Ryan Robinson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/821238#Comment_821238

You know what is interesting, I remembered awhile back I had an issue with a gap and Dave pointing me towards using Opentext. I was opposed in my heart . But I did it and it was way more simple.

So, I recreated a search similar to the one on on the Faithlife group with Opentext and got wayyyy more results that the Cascadia Search.

This seems to work better in my opinion.

Mike Hogue

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/821237#Comment_821237

Ryan - in Logos, in a Syntax Search window, hit "F1", then follow the link to "Syntax Search Document." The resulting help file includes "available search terms."

It's not incredibly helpful for something like syntax searches, though.

Mike Hogue

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/821217#Comment_821217

Mike M - I think in your latest syntax search video on youtube you mentioned it was the last in the series. I appreciated your videos...and based on how helpful your contribution to this thread was I'd suggest it would be helpful for you to do some "advanced syntax searching" tutorials, perhaps with topics covering gaps and groups. As Ryan mentioned, there seems to be a shortage of good documentation for some of the finer details...

Ryan Robinson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/821243#Comment_821243

Mike M - I think in your latest syntax search video on youtube you mentioned it was the last in the series. I appreciated your videos...and based on how helpful your contribution to this thread was I'd suggest it would be helpful for you to do some "advanced syntax searching" tutorials, perhaps with topics covering gaps and groups. As Ryan mentioned, there seems to be a shortage of good documentation for some of the finer details...

[Y]

Michael Meiser (Faithlife)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/821238#Comment_821238

I'm also noticing this could of been a lot easier search for the question from the Faithlife group. There are only to false hits (2 Cor 2:5 and 1 John 5:13).

I'm guessing the only reason you didn't go for this, Mike, is it isn't as safe to be exactly what he was looking for?

You got it. ;-)

Michael Meiser (Faithlife)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/821240#Comment_821240

So, I recreated a search similar to the one on on the Faithlife group with Opentext and got wayyyy more results that the Cascadia Search.

Great follow up search of a different database!

This is the beauty of having two different databases to search. It gives you two different but similar slices on life. As I am sure you can agree, a complete, running, visualized graph of the syntax of the entire Greek NT is no easy task. It is rife with interpretive decisions and sometimes confusing decisions that need to be made. Just like comparing different translations of the Bible is a great practice, comparing different syntactical analyses is also a great practice, albeit a bit more difficult. ;-)

You will notice that the primary difference here between Cascadia and Opentext is the interpretive decision on where to draw the line between different clauses. For instance, in Matt. 20:33, Cascadia says that the vocative κυριε can stand on its own as a minor, non-predicated clause, while Opentext includes it in the same secondary clause. IMHO, I think the simpler take from Opentext is truer to the syntax of this verse than Cascadia.

You will also notice in other instances how conjunctions are handled differently when they precede a clause. Once again, I think I like Opentext here.

There are times when I really like Opentext, and there are times when I really like Cascadia. In a similar vein, there are times when I prefer the ESV and there are times when I prefer the NIV. Ideally, we will take a look at both and make the decision from there.