Search Help

It would be easy to look for 3rd person verbs then first person verb sharing the same lemma in some proximity, but here two different lemmas are used for the same LN domain (and same sense).

Syntax Search has LN agreement rules along with Cascadia having clause structure for proximity:

Keep Smiling [:)]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/918430#Comment_918430

That gets me what I was looking for, thank you. One point of clarification: why can't i specify the second verb associated with clause3? It would be helpful to have both verbs highlighted in the search (rather than the clauses), but any attempt to add a verb under clause3 (I've tried Matching Skip Levels both on and off) reduces the matches to zero. If the verb can be specified in clause2, I'm clueless as to why the same thing cannot be done in clause3.

Thanks so much.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/918512#Comment_918512

It would be helpful to have both verbs highlighted in the search (rather than the clauses), but any attempt to add a verb under clause3 (I've tried Matching Skip Levels both on and off) reduces the matches to zero. If the verb can be specified in clause2, I'm clueless as to why the same thing cannot be done in clause3.

+1 Puzzled [:S] since likewise unable to highlight verb function, phrase, OR word under clause 3. Adding anything to right of Clause 3 has nothing found.

Keep Smiling [:)]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/918578#Comment_918578

Created Bug thread for Faithlife Developers => Bug: 7.8 SR-1 Syntax Search unexpected 0 results

Keep Smiling [:)]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/918578#Comment_918578

It would be helpful to have both verbs highlighted in the search (rather than the clauses), but any attempt to add a verb under clause3 (I've tried Matching Skip Levels both on and off) reduces the matches to zero. If the verb can be specified in clause2, I'm clueless as to why the same thing cannot be done in clause3.

+1 Puzzled since likewise unable to highlight verb function, phrase, OR word under clause 3

This works and there are other possibilities:

The more you restrict the Clause, the less results you get:

88 as shown
60 if you add Verb 1p to Clause 3
105 if you remove the Verbs from both Clauses
84 if you then make Clause 2 a Head node.
17 if only Clause 3 is a Head node

However, I get 0 results:

if both Clause 2 and 3 are a Head node
if there is any Agreement in Clause 3 (the bug)

If the clause specifies the verbal attributes I think it must then contain a Head node with those attributes. The Head node is marked with an asterisk * and it would be a subordinate clause. So you get fewer results if you require Clause 2 or Clause 3 to be a Head node.

EDIT: I did not specify Singular for the Verb 3p. That done I get 57 results compared to 50 from KS4J

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/918612#Comment_918612

It would be helpful to have both verbs highlighted in the search (rather than the clauses), but any attempt to add a verb under clause3 (I've tried Matching Skip Levels both on and off) reduces the matches to zero. If the verb can be specified in clause2, I'm clueless as to why the same thing cannot be done in clause3.

+1 Puzzled since likewise unable to highlight verb function, phrase, OR word under clause 3

This works and there are other possibilities:

The more you restrict the Clause, the less results you get:

88 as shown

60 if you add Verb 1p to Clause 3

105 if you remove the Verbs from both Clauses

84 if you then make Clause 2 a Head node.

17 if only Clause 3 is a Head node

However, I get 0 results:

if both Clause 2 and 3 are a Head node

if there is any Agreement in Clause 3 (the bug)

If the clause specifies the verbal attributes I think it must then contain a Head node with those attributes. The Head node is marked with an asterisk * and it would be a subordinate clause. So you get fewer results if you require Clause 2 or Clause 3 to be a Head node.

EDIT: I did not specify Singular for the Verb 3p. That done I get 57 results compared to 50 from KS4J

I don't understand how you were able to enter values for LN Domain and Subdomain without it being entered as text in quotes.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/918661#Comment_918661

I don't understand how you were able to enter values for LN Domain and Subdomain without it being entered as text in quotes.

Those are Agreements, and you select all the parameters.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/918663#Comment_918663

Thanks Dave!

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/918663#Comment_918663

I have it setup exactly as shown and return 0 results. Why???

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/918665#Comment_918665

Never mind. I checked Matching skip levels for both Word values (although, I don't understand why this is necessary) and I got 88 results just as you have indicated. Thanks, anyway.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/918612#Comment_918612

105 if you remove the Verbs from both Clauses

+1 Thanks [:)]

Noticed some of the 105 results have various sets of Louw Nida verbal agreement in the same passage.

Keep Smiling [:)]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/918612#Comment_918612

This is what I ended up using, a total of 41 hits with several important parallels:

If I could improve anything, it would be filtering out the verbs of speaking (which still dominate my hits). Is there a way to have multiple lemmas listed under the Lemma does not equal value in word 1? I've tried entering a list separated by commas and spaces, and neither seems to work.

Thanks everyone for your help, as far as I know this search could only have been built in Logos; no one else has the tagging to support different lemmas used for the same Sense / Domain. I learned something here.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/918701#Comment_918701

If I could improve anything, it would be filtering out the verbs of speaking (which still dominate my hits).

Specify Root not equal λεγω in both Words.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/918753#Comment_918753

Dave,

I don't see a way to enter a root. On a Mac, the values under Text & Lemma are Text, Lemma and Gloss. Here is a screenshot. How would I specify Root?

Thanks!

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/918809#Comment_918809

I don't see a way to enter a root. On a Mac, the values under Text & Lemma are Text, Lemma and Gloss.

That is surprising.

What version of Logos?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/918929#Comment_918929

Mac version, 7.9 b4....which I believe is the latest beta release. Strange indeed!