Bug: 7.8 SR-1 Syntax Search unexpected 0 results

Follow-up to thread => Search Help

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. Adding anything to right of Clause 3 has nothing found.

Hence providing Syntax Search replication steps in this Bug thread. Successful search using Logos 7.8 SR-1 on OS X followed by adding word to Clause 3 for highlighting with net result of no results.

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:

Changing Syntax Search to highlight verbs causes no results:

Expected Syntax Search to find 50 results (same as earlier search) along with highlighting both verbs.

Keep Smiling [:)]

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Rick Brannan (Logos)

I think the search isn't finding what you think it's finding, so when the later step of specifying agreement on a word (to highlight) is taken, the results turn to zero because there are no words possible to locate with the query you've developed.

It appears you're looking for where adjoining clauses that share a parent clause use a 3rd person singular verb in the first clause and a first person (any number) verb in the second clause, and the verbs share Louw-Nida Domain and Subdomain (so, top-level domain and lettered subdomain). Correct?

Here's how I'd go about doing what I think you want to do; the below query locates 72 instances. Note use of agreement on "Instance" in the first item to bind to the head (verb) of the clause. Second, note the agreement with clause 2 LN items specified at the word level, not at the clause level. I think you could also specify LN agreement at the clause level, with the instance agreement between Clause 3 and Word 2 to highlight the proper word in the clause.

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/918756#Comment_918756

I think you could also specify LN agreement at the clause level, with the instance agreement between Clause 3 and Word 2 to highlight the proper word in the clause.

Living and Learning that agreement between clauses with instance for words results in nothing found:

Seeking agreement at word level finds results (more of them since clause can have more than one verb) along with highlighting the verbs:

Keep Smiling [:)]