Syntax Search

Syntax Searches remain complicated for me.

Reading Ruth 1:4 וַיִּשְׂא֣וּ לָהֶ֗ם נָשִׁים֙, I wanted to find out if the verb נשׂא regularly occurs with the lemma אִשָּׁה as direct object. So I thought, the best way to find out is by using a Syntax search. But I've a few questions about this.

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

Eventually I did the following syntax search.

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

If I leave out 'Anything', that will give only two results: Gen. 31:17 and Judg 21:23.

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.

Originally, I had tried the following syntax search (the only change being the Hebrew lemma for 'woman' instead of the gloss 'women'), but it returned none of the results found with the other search.

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

Any help on these questions would be appreciated!

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Dave Hooton

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.

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.

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)

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.

Michel Pauw

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/995939#Comment_995939

Thank you, Dave. I certainly need some more practice on this.

Q1: The clause search is helpful. I missed the correct syntax.
Q3: makes sense to me.
Q4: so you need to know that the plural is considered a different lemma. That's new to me.

Q2: I will probably need a crystal clear explanation on the 'Matching skips levels' feature. It is still hard for me to visualize what is happening. I think I understand the function of 'Anything'. But given the explanation of 'Anything', the 'Matching skips levels' doesn't make sense to me anymore. Sorry... Could you give it one more try?

Thanks!

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/996191#Comment_996191

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

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/996196#Comment_996196

Alright, I think I'm getting it. Let me summarize:

Clause 1 --> Clause 2 --> Clause IC-1 --> Segment 1

Clause IC-2 --> Segment 2

Clause IC-3 --> Segment 3

In case of the diagram above, trying to find a match between Clause IC-1 and Clause IC-3:

there is a direct relationship between Clause 2 and all the Clause IC's. Correct?
there is not a direct relationship between Clause 1 and all the Clause IC's. Correct?
a syntax search with Clause IC-1 - 'Anything' - Clause IC-3 will skip/ignore Clause IC-2. Correct?
'matching skips levels' is not relevant here, as we are searching for segments at the same level. Correct?
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?

Final question: if you say 'In Gen. 31:17, you can see that you have skipped several (3) levels', that applies to 'Anything', right? But if so, I would say that I don't skip a level, but I do skip one segment (אֶת־בָּנָיו is the only segment that comes in between, right?). Is this correct?

Thanks a lot for guiding me through this complex matter!

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/997181#Comment_997181

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

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

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).

'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.

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.

Michel Pauw

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/997219#Comment_997219

Thanks, Dave! Makes much more sense now.