Proximity search using lemmas
I'm studying Romans 11:10. In particular, I am looking at forever at the end of the verse. I did a search using "lemma:dia lemma:pas" (I used actual Greek letters), and it returned Romans 11:10 in the search results. I changed the search to be "lemma:dia WITHIN 2 WORDS lemma:pas" and Romans 11:10 did not appear in the search results. However, other verses (e.g. Mark 5:5; Luke 24:53) which have the identical phrase as Romans 11:10 did appear. I've had this problem with other proximity searches, where certain verses seem to be omitted from the search results when it appears they should be included. Am I doing something wrong or is this a bug?
Comments
-
Paul B. said:
I did a search using "lemma:dia lemma:pas" (I used actual Greek letters), and it returned Romans 11:10 in the search results.
Welcome [:D]
Screen shots can illustrate searches (lemma includes accent while root does not)
<Lemma = lbs/el/διά> BEFORE 1-2 WORDS <Lemma = lbs/el/πᾶς>
<Root = lbs/el/δια> BEFORE 1-2 WORDS <Root = lbs/el/πας>
FYI: Thankful for Right Click on a word having Lemma and Root choices for search this resource so could open search for individual terms followed by copying them for proximity search.
Keep Smiling [:)]
0 -
lemma:dia WITHIN 2 WORDS lemma:pas will return instances where your words are 1 or 2 words apart, but not where the two terms appear on the same word.
If you are searching a translation Bible (rather than original language) for original language data, then the proximity is based on a strange amalgamation of the English words and original language words. In this particular case (in the ESV at least), the words are considered 0 apart, because "dia pantos" is combined to be translated as "forever".
For proximity searches that operate much more accurately, you'll want to make sure and search an original language Bible. In that case, with a Bible like the NA27, "dia pantos" is considered 1 word apart, which is much closer to what you would expect. In this case, you probably want to use a proximity of WITHIN 1 WORD.
Andrew Batishko | Logos software developer
0 -
Thanks for your input and examples. It was helpful.
0 -
I was searching a translation Bible instead of the UBS. Once I changed to using the UBS, it worked as expected.
As a side note, the search results were the same whether I used WITHIN 2 WORDS or WITHIN 0-2 WORDS.
Thanks for all the help!
0 -
-
lemma:dia WITHIN 2 WORDS lemma:pas will return instances where your words are exactly 2 words apart.
I'm loathe to disagree with you, but I'm sure that lemma:dia WITHIN 2 WORDS lemma:pas is the same aslemma:dia WITHIN 0-2 WORDS lemma:pas
If you want to search for words exactly two words apart you have to search for lemma:dia WITHIN 2-2 WORDS lemma:pas
This is my personal Faithlife account. On 1 March 2022, I started working for Faithlife, and have a new 'official' user account. Posts on this account shouldn't be taken as official Faithlife views!
0 -
Mark Barnes said:
lemma:dia WITHIN 2 WORDS lemma:pas will return instances where your words are exactly 2 words apart.
I'm loathe to disagree with you, but I'm sure that lemma:dia WITHIN 2 WORDS lemma:pas is the same aslemma:dia WITHIN 0-2 WORDS lemma:pas
If you want to search for words exactly two words apart you have to search for lemma:dia WITHIN 2-2 WORDS lemma:pas
I did a poor job of editing my post. I made another edit, and this time it should be more accurate.
Thanks for catching the problem!
Andrew Batishko | Logos software developer
0 -
Mark Barnes said:
I'm loathe to disagree with you, but I'm sure that lemma:dia WITHIN 2 WORDS lemma:pas is the same aslemma:dia WITHIN 0-2 WORDS lemma:pas
WITHIN n WORDS is the same as WITHIN 1-n WORDS. It's not the same as WITHIN 0-2 WORDS, because then (for example) "holy WITHIN 2 WORDS holy" would find "holy WITHIN 0-2 WORDS holy", which simply finds "holy", because it's within 0 words of itself. This is obviously unexpected and would make "WITHIN n WORDS" useless a lot of the time, so the lower bound defaults to 1, i.e., "holy WITHIN 1-2 WORDS holy".
On the other hand, this default causes problems in reverse interlinears when two Greek/Hebrew words are aligned to the same translation word. However, there are many other proximity search problems that arise when searching a translation for original language words, so we generally advise to do proximity searches on the original language text, then use corresponding search results to view them in English.
0 -
WITHIN n WORDS is the same as WITHIN 1-n WORDS. It's not the same as WITHIN 0-2 WORDS, because then (for example) "holy WITHIN 2 WORDS holy" would find "holy WITHIN 0-2 WORDS holy", which simply finds "holy", because it's within 0 words of itself. This is obviously unexpected and would make "WITHIN n WORDS" useless a lot of the time, so the lower bound defaults to 1, i.e., "holy WITHIN 1-2 WORDS holy".
I am horrified by these issues, as I am loathe to attempt to build these complex edifices, because I DONT THINK I SHOULD HAVE TO. Simplify this stuff, please.
0 -
I was replying to a technical note about search syntax, not attempting to provide training.
Most of the time, a WITHIN 2 WORDS b "just works" if you're looking for "a" within 2 words of "b". Examples of this are given in the Search Cookbook (when you open an empty Search panel) and can be clicked to populate the search box with a template. If this is still too complicated, this is feedback we have heard from multiple customers and are taking into consideration for making search simpler in a future version of the product.
(There are complications if you're trying to search for Greek word proximity in an English reverse interlinear; my recommendation is "don't do that", do your search on the Greek text instead.)
0 -
I am horrified by these issues, as I am loathe to attempt to build these complex edifices, because I DONT THINK I SHOULD HAVE TO. Simplify this stuff, please.
[Y][Y][Y][Y]
0 -
Bill said:
I am horrified by these issues, as I am loathe to attempt to build these complex edifices, because I DONT THINK I SHOULD HAVE TO. Simplify this stuff, please.
Don’t be horrified. For most searches the simple syntax works just fine. Occasionally you might want something more specific, in which case the slightly more complex syntax is necessary. You only have to use complex syntax if you want to perform complex searches (and many complex searches can be done with the simple Bible browser or Concordance tools).
This is my personal Faithlife account. On 1 March 2022, I started working for Faithlife, and have a new 'official' user account. Posts on this account shouldn't be taken as official Faithlife views!
0 -
scooter said:
I am horrified by these issues, as I am loathe to attempt to build these complex edifices, because I DONT THINK I SHOULD HAVE TO. Simplify this stuff, please.
Is Morph Query simplier ? (needs online connection)
Note: a number of Logos users have computer background (e.g. SQL) so complex syntax nuances are appreciated. Also aware of many comments seeking simpler search interface while desiring similar results.
For searching "forever" in Romans 11:10 translation for two Greek words, am curious what would be simpler ? Would a Right Click that has search option to find other occurrences of two (or more) original language words being translated into one English word be helpful ?
Similar search idea is original language idiom.
Keep Smiling [:)]
0
