Morph Search not returning results

Page 1 of 1 (13 items)
This post has 12 Replies | 1 Follower

Posts 645
Dean J | Forum Activity | Posted: Sat, Feb 25 2012 7:46 AM

I tried looking for the construct plural of man (אנשי  'men of'), and couldn't return any results. I entered the lemma, then the @ sign, and then the relevant options. The best I could get was by punching noun, plural, which gave me a few hits for 'men'. 

Anyone know why it wouldn't return? 

(I ended up getting what I needed by running a search in Bible with 'men of', but now I'm wondering what I'm missing with the morph search).

 

Posts 1145
William | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Feb 25 2012 10:25 AM

Dean053:
I entered the lemma, then the @ sign, and then the relevant options. The best I could get was by punching noun, plural, which gave me a few hits for 'men'.

Well, I thought I might help here...but I am a little more confused....I did a search for the lemma on the
"men of" and this is what I got....

 

That third line down is the lemma.....which I do not understand

here are a couple other searches I did...just to try something

 

and one more that is just confusing

Posts 5337
Kevin Becker | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Feb 25 2012 11:08 AM

Dean053:

I tried looking for the construct plural of man (אנשי  'men of'), and couldn't return any results. I entered the lemma, then the @ sign, and then the relevant options. The best I could get was by punching noun, plural, which gave me a few hits for 'men'. 

Anyone know why it wouldn't return? 

(I ended up getting what I needed by running a search in Bible with 'men of', but now I'm wondering what I'm missing with the morph search).

Dean, we need to see more details about your search string, the limits on it, and which Bible you ran it on. The easiest way to do this would be to take a screen shot of the search that failed.

Posts 645
Dean J | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Feb 25 2012 11:28 AM

Apologies, I should have included it when I asked. I reran the search:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posts 5337
Kevin Becker | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Feb 25 2012 11:29 AM

William, I believe you are mixing morph schemes. You started off with a Bible search on a RI, which uses the Andersen Forbes scheme. Then you went to a Morph search on the BHS--Morph tagged which is an old, outdated version of the Westminster scheme (if memory serves correctly) it's no wonder you didn't get any results

I looked more into this and the AFAT (and the reverse interlinears) treat the construct form of אִישׁ as its own lemma. So the RIs list אַנְשֵׁי as the lemma.

There must be some linguistic reasoning behind this but I don't know enough about Hebrew to understand why. The אִישׁ search should work on BHS WIVU or Westminster.

Posts 5337
Kevin Becker | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Feb 25 2012 11:31 AM

Dean053:
Apologies, I should have included it when I asked. I reran the search:

For the reason I outlined to William the lemma treatment is different, you want

Posts 645
Dean J | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Feb 25 2012 11:32 AM

Got it, thanks for your help!

Posts 15805
Forum MVP
Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :) | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Feb 25 2012 6:20 PM

William Bingham:

and one more that is just confusing

Looking for Anderson-Forbes (af) morphological tagging in BHS finds nothing since BHS has lls morphological tagging:

Conversely, searching for lls morphology finds nothing in Hebrew resources using Anderson-Forbes (af).  My collection "Hebrew Interlinear + AFAT + BHS" has Hebrew resources with different morphological tagging.  Can search surface text across these resources:

Apologies: personally have a lot more Hebrew to learn; for morph search, prefer to start with a verse that should be in search results, then right click so can choose appropriate lemma.

Keep Smiling Smile

Posts 645
Dean J | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Feb 25 2012 6:24 PM

good idea ... I'm relatively new to using the morph search so I thought I was doing something wrong. Glad to know the problem wasn't me!!

Posts 9947
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Feb 25 2012 7:35 PM

Dean053:

I tried looking for the construct plural of man (אנשי  'men of'), and couldn't return any results. I entered the lemma, then the @ sign, and then the relevant options. The best I could get was by punching noun, plural, which gave me a few hits for 'men'. 

Anyone know why it wouldn't return? 

(I ended up getting what I needed by running a search in Bible with 'men of', but now I'm wondering what I'm missing with the morph search).

 

Try this—it should work with other morph schemes as well.

Incidentally (or not so incidental), I think a good deal of your problem is due to using אנושׁ rather than the lemma (dictionary form) which is אישׁ.

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

Posts 15805
Forum MVP
Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :) | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Feb 25 2012 11:09 PM

George Somsel:
Try this—it should work with other morph schemes as well.

Personally living and learning that the lemma's AND morphological codes are different, so morph search in BHS finds nothing in AFAT:

Likewise learned could start with Hebrew word in Genesis 13:13 then right click, choose lemma, then morph search for lemma with same morphological tagging.

Keep Smiling Smile

Posts 9947
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Feb 26 2012 12:41 AM

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :):

Personally living and learning that the lemma's AND morphological codes are different, so morph search in BHS finds nothing in AFAT:

I hadn't checked AFAT, but you are apparently correct that the morph codes differ.  It is obvious that AFAT is in error.  This is not totally unknown with AFAT.

EDIT:  Perhaps I might clarify a bit.  While the pl const אַנשֶׂי does appear to be derived from אנושׁ (note the nun), it is universally understood to be the pl of אישׁ.  This is not at all unknown with commonly used words.  Commonly used words are the ones where you will find the most irregularities.  In Latin, e.g., you have fero, ferre tuli, latus.  Note how the stem changes in the perfect to tuli which can by no stretch of the imagination be derived from fero.  What has happened it that the perfect has appropriated a form from a completely different word as its own.  While the form אנשׁי may therefore be a formation from אנושׁ, it has been appropriated by אישׁ as its pl and must be regarded as such.

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

Posts 15805
Forum MVP
Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :) | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Feb 26 2012 5:20 PM

George Somsel:
EDIT:  Perhaps I might clarify a bit.  While the pl const אַנשֶׂי does appear to be derived from אנושׁ (note the nun), it is universally understood to be the pl of אישׁ.  This is not at all unknown with commonly used words.  Commonly used words are the ones where you will find the most irregularities.  In Latin, e.g., you have fero, ferre tuli, latus.  Note how the stem changes in the perfect to tuli which can by no stretch of the imagination be derived from fero.  What has happened it that the perfect has appropriated a form from a completely different word as its own.  While the form אנשׁי may therefore be a formation from אנושׁ, it has been appropriated by אישׁ as its pl and must be regarded as such.

Appreciate clarification; seems a bit like the relationship between go and went in English, which is an example of irregular verbs.  Searching my Logos library for irregular NEAR (noun,verb) includes many results in several Biblical Hebrew grammar resources.

Keep Smiling Smile

Page 1 of 1 (13 items) | RSS