Syntax Search

Michel Pauw said:

Q2: why do I need to include 'Anything' in between, if I already have selected 'Matching skips levels'?

The latter skips levels horizontally.

Note: you don't need to skip levels between the Clause and Clause IC's.

Anything will skip other dependents of Clause 1 (vertically)  e.g. it will skip Clause IC's between the Verb IC and the Object IC.

Michel Pauw said:

Q3: why is the search without 'anything' returning Gen. 31:17 but not Ruth 1:4? Both cases have the verb נשׂא with the object gloss 'women' and with something in between.

Because Ruth 1:4 has an intervening Clause IC; you need Anything to skip that.

Michel Pauw said:

Q4: why does the search below not return the same results as the search above, e.g. Ruth 1:4?

The lemma for women is  נשׁ

You had the lemma for woman אִשָּׁה  - you mixed AF Hebrew and Logos Hebrew (below)

Michel Pauw said:Q1: is a syntax search indeed the best approach to this question? Or are there alternatives?

A Clause Search is better suited (using LHB) i.e.

verb-lemma:נשׂא AND object-lemma:אִשָּׁה

It gives 2 Chron 11:21 where the crossing lines in AFPMA indicate a Gap; which is very difficult to diagram even when you (correctly) put the Object IC before the Verb IC.

In AFPMA, Ruth 1:4,  you have skipped the Noun Phrase between the  Direct Object IC and the "women" Segment. Otherwise, you would have to include it in your diagram. In Gen 31:17, you can see that you have skipped several (3) levels.

There is nothing to skip between the Verb IC and its Segment, but the declaration allows for this.

Now, when I say skipping is not necessary between the Clause and the Clause IC's, it's because you want a direct relationship. You want to avoid a Clause within a distant Clause relationship e.g.

Clause 1  ---->.....     -----> Clause 2 ------>  Verb IC

                                                    -------> Dir Obj IC

Clause 2 has the direct relationship.  If the IC's had "matching skips levels" your result would also include Clause 1, because Clause 2 would be skipped to make the match.

Michel Pauw said:

there is a direct relationship between Clause 2 and all the Clause IC's. Correct?

Yes - assuming that there is a connecting line between Clause 2 and IC-2, IC-3

Michel Pauw said:

there is not a direct relationship between Clause 1 and all the Clause IC's. Correct?

Yes - assuming Clause 1 is only connected to Clause 2

Michel Pauw said:

a syntax search with Clause IC-1 - 'Anything' - Clause IC-3 will skip/ignore Clause IC-2. Correct?

Yes, and you can specify that it ignores multiple dependents (of Clause 2!), including zero (nothing between the two IC's).

Michel Pauw said:

'matching skips levels' is not relevant here, as we are searching for segments at the same level. Correct?

'Anything'  is a filler (or place-holder) for dependents of Clause 2 that you are not interested in. 'Matching skips levels' applies to an actual term (Clause IC, Segment, etc.) for the purpose of finding a match i.e. whether the term is a direct dependent or not.

Michel Pauw said:

IF I would search for any Clause IC-3 AND another segment in Clause 1 (but not Clause 2) I have to enable 'matching skips levels'. Correct?

Please clarify 'any Clause IC-3' and where you thought to apply 'Matching skips levels'. As it stands, you can't have another segment that is NOT in Clause 2! You would have to add something like  Clause 1  ---> IC-4 ---> Segment 4.