PDA

View Full Version : Searching for particular Greek forms



prisca
03-04-2007, 08:58 PM
I have a question which I have not been able to find the answer to in either the Help or by seaching this forum. Perhaps someone could help me.

Suppose I want to find all the occurrences of say present, passive, third peson singulr of a particular Greek verb or all the occurrences of an aroist subjunctinve of a particular Greek verb. In BibleWorks 7 there was a dialogue box where I could type in the verb and click on all the other options and it would give me a list of the verses where the word(s) I was looking for occured. Does this still exist in BibleWorks 8? I haven't been able to find it. The only thing I have been able to find is the Graphical Search Engine, which in spite of going through the tutorial several times, I simple don't comprehend.:confused:

Mark Eddy
03-05-2007, 12:10 AM
As far as I know you cannot find anything in BibleWorks 8, because it does not exist. BibleWorks 7 is the most recent release (at least in the U.S.). In BW7 you should be able to find what you are looking for if on the "Options" tab you click on the + beside the "Command Line Configuration Options" and check the box "Enable command line morphology code help." Then when you type your lemma on the command line followed by @ BW will display a drop-down list from which to chose the specific forms you desire to search.
I hope this answers your question.
Mark Eddy

prisca
03-05-2007, 01:05 AM
Thank you :)

I thought it had to be there somewhere.

Sorry about the 7 and 8 - should have been 6 and 7.

jim.dvorak
04-07-2007, 12:55 PM
So, I like the GSE, but sometimes, I just want to hammer out the code in the command line--it's the programmer in me. Actually, it is one less window I have to have open (I usually have a BUNCH open already). Anyway, why can I not use the '?' wild card in the command line as in, .*@v??m* ? When you try to put in the '?' after the verb 'v' it no worky. However, such a code is perfectly acceptable in the GSE. What's up with that? Is there a setting somewhere I can allow those? Do I have to disable the command line morphology help?

MBushell
04-07-2007, 01:15 PM
Anyway, why can I not use the '?' wild card in the command line as in, .*@v??m* ? When you try to put in the '?' after the verb 'v' it no worky.

The ? doesn't work there because ? is invalid after v. Why? Because the popdown lists have to give a list of valid codes for the next character and that depends on what ? is? That's because infiniives, particicples and the remaining verb forms have different code sequences after the v. Make sense?

If you are typing and want to dismiss the command line morph code windows just press ESC. Then you can type anything, even invalid codes. If the code helper gets too smart for its own good just press ESC.

Mike

jim.dvorak
04-07-2007, 02:38 PM
Mike,

Thanks for your help.

sicarri
04-27-2007, 04:49 AM
I am trying to search for certain word forms like the writer above, read these posts and followed the directions. I also found the exact code I needed from the on line help for searching for pluperfect.
The command is supposed to be .*@v?y*
BUT - a note on this forum page says ? is invalid after 'v'.

Okay, moving on - I type this command anyway into the command line (I have Douay-Rheims selected) and the response is basically, 'cannot be found'.
Well, if I try searching in BNT - I can't even type the '@' symbol.

Can someone just do the search for me and print it here? I don't have time for this . . .

Dale A. Brueggemann
04-27-2007, 05:40 AM
I am trying to search for certain word forms like the writer above, read these posts and followed the directions. I also found the exact code I needed from the on line help for searching for pluperfect.
The command is supposed to be .*@v?y*
BUT - a note on this forum page says ? is invalid after 'v'.

Okay, moving on - I type this command anyway into the command line (I have Douay-Rheims selected) and the response is basically, 'cannot be found'.

You can't do morphological searches in an English text, it needs to be in the morophologically analyzed Greek (GBM) or Hebrew (WTM)


Well, if I try searching in BNT - I can't even type the '@' symbol.

Same problem as above. You have a Greek text, but not the morphologically analyzed one (BNM or BGM)


Can someone just do the search for me and print it here? I don't have time for this.

Hmmm-mmm?

Steve Watkins
04-27-2007, 12:38 PM
Can someone just do the search for me and print it here? I don't have time for this . . .

Good thing you have BibleWorks. Imagine all those who have gone before and performed exegetical research without the benefit of a computerized database! Then you'd really be out of time...

I've found that with most things, BibleWorks included, an ounce of time studying the help files pays off in pounds. Take the few minutes that are needed to read up on morphological searching, and you will learn the basic tools to save yourself a massive amount of time and accomplish a massive amount of work.

sicarri
04-27-2007, 03:25 PM
Thank you, Dale, for your response.
You can imagine my confusion after having read the help file on this subject and many posts on this web site and still not being able to search for something that was used as an example!
I did not read anywhere that the text had to be morph (ologically?) analyzed.
Perhaps I missed it.
I will try again after I finish downloading all these updates.

On the other hand, I don't really see how Steve has contributed anything positive to this thread. Please, this seems to be a positive environment where people are sincerely interested in helping one another.
I hope y'all keep it that way.

Thank you again, Dale.
S

Michael Hanel
04-27-2007, 03:34 PM
Thank you, Dale, for your response.
You can imagine my confusion after having read the help file on this subject and many posts on this web site and still not being able to search for something that was used as an example!
I did not read anywhere that the text had to be morph (ologically?) analyzed.
Perhaps I missed it.
I will try again after I finish downloading all these updates.

On the other hand, I don't really see how Steve has contributed anything positive to this thread. Please, this seems to be a positive environment where people are sincerely interested in helping one another.
I hope y'all keep it that way.

Thank you again, Dale.
S

If you're new to BibleWorks, spend some time going through the Study Guides and basic help examples with videos. Reading things on the Forums may not be the best way to learn the basics because people who ask questions often know what it is they're doing and assume others do as well and so they leave out basic information that you would have to learn through some other way. In any event, I'm glad you're getting some guidance and don't worry no one meant any harm. Anyway, start with the basics, then maybe some of the Forums stuff will make more sense.

Steve Watkins
04-27-2007, 07:13 PM
Please, this seems to be a positive environment where people are sincerely interested in helping one another.
I hope y'all keep it that way.

Well, there was certainly no offense intended, so please accept my apologies. I was merely trying to help by pointing you to the wealth of knowledge that is readily accessible in the help files and tutorials (which walk you through morphological searches visually and step-by-step). Like Michael said, a lot of times, it's actually quicker to find an answer there than waiting for people to respond on the forums. I didn't realize that you'd already exhausted the help files, and were still looking for answers.

Anyway, no harm meant, and I am sorry if I came off as offensive.

Steve Watkins
04-27-2007, 07:33 PM
Sicarri,



A "morphological" database like the BGM is one which contains all of the Greek or Hebrew lemmas, followed by codes for the forms found in the text. This makes searching for the particular forms possible, as the database can be scoured for those codes and compile a list. Searching the English version can't do this, because there's no data contained in that text pertaining to particular forms of nouns, verbs, etc... This is also true of the basic Greek and Hebrew texts (BGT, WTT for example). In these, the words appear according to their unique forms, without coding tags that can be searched on.

So, to so what you want to do - search for all pluperfect verbs without reference to their mood, you had the right query string, just needed to be using a morph-tagged version like the BGM. As Mike Bushell noted, though, in order to enter the '?' after the 'v', you have to hit ESC, because the command line is expecting some kind of entry. To make this easier in this particular instance, by the way, you could just enter the "i" for the indicative mood, as pluperfects are only found in the indicitave.


As a gesture of peace (;) ) - I ran your query.


Using the BGM for morphological searching, I entered your search string into the command line (.*@v?y*), which yielded these results:

292 verses, 97 forms, 302 hits, 0.83 seconds

Here's the list of references. I didn't want to list the text, because it's a lot of verses.

Gen. 3:5; 18:2, 8, 19; 19:27, 33, 35; 28:13, 16; 31:32; 39:3, 6; 40:3; 42:23; 43:7; 45:1; Exod. 1:8; 16:15; 18:13; 20:21; 24:10; 33:8; 34:29; Lev. 5:18; 10:16; 16:23; Num. 16:27; 17:12; 22:22; 23:6, 17; 33:56; Deut. 5:5; 9:10; 10:10; 13:7, 14; 32:17, 37; Jos. 3:16; 4:10; 8:14; 10:2; Jda. 7:12; 9:26; 16:29; 19:28; Jdg. 8:19; 16:29; 19:11; Ruth 2:11; 1 Sam. 13:16; 14:3, 27; 16:21; 19:20; 22:6, 15, 22; 30:12; 2 Sam. 1:6, 10; 3:22, 26; 11:16, 20, 22; 17:17; 18:11; 20:12; 1 Ki. 8:14; 10:10, 12f; 13:1, 24f, 28; 20:9, 13; 22:19; 2 Ki. 5:25; 11:14; 1 Chr. 11:15; 19:5; 2 Chr. 6:3; 18:18; 1 Es. 5:52; 6:13, 22; Est. 4:5; 5:1; 7:8; Jdt. 4:3; 9:1; 10:3, 18; 14:15; Tob. 1:12; 2:10; 5:4; Tbs. 1:12; 2:10; 1 Ma. 4:27; 10:81; 11:38; 15:12, 15; 2 Ma. 3:17, 29f; 4:26; 6:5; 9:2, 7, 15, 18; 12:39; 13:17; 14:24, 28; 15:6; 3 Ma. 1:1; 2:33; 3:5, 30; 5:24; 4 Ma. 3:8; 6:32; 16:15; Odes 2:17, 37; 5:11; Prov. 21:22; 23:35; Job 3:25; 4:12; 6:13; 12:5, 24; 19:19; 23:17; 24:11, 13; 29:14, 16; 31:32, 35; 37:5; 42:3, 11; Wis. 17:20; 18:1, 12, 16; 19:1, 10; Ps. Sol. 1:7; Zeph. 3:2; Zech. 1:8; 2:7; 3:1, 3, 5; Isa. 6:2; 26:11; 30:15, 32; 33:19; 42:16; 45:5, 15; 55:5; Jer. 2:25; 4:22; 14:18; 15:14; 16:13; 19:4; 22:28; 27:38; 31:7; 46:18; Bar. 3:17; Ezek. 1:21; 2:10; 3:23; 8:11; 10:3, 9, 17; 16:15; 40:3; 43:6; Sus. 1:13, 33, 35, 38; Dan. 2:31; 6:6, 9; 7:10; 10:13; 12:5; Dat. 3:3, 95; 7:10; 10:13; 12:5; Bet. 1:12; Matt. 7:25; 12:7, 46; 13:2; 24:43; 25:26; 27:15, 18; Mk. 1:34; 9:6; 10:1; 14:40, 44; 15:7, 10; 16:9; Lk. 2:49; 4:29, 41; 6:8; 8:2, 29, 38; 11:22; 12:39; 16:20; 19:15, 22; 22:13; 23:10, 35, 49; Jn. 1:31, 33, 35; 2:9; 4:8, 10; 5:13; 6:6, 17, 64; 7:30, 37; 8:19f; 9:22; 11:13, 19, 30, 42, 44, 57; 13:11; 18:2, 5, 16, 18; 19:25; 20:9, 11, 14; 21:4; Acts 1:10; 4:22; 7:18, 44; 8:27; 9:7, 21; 12:9; 14:23; 16:3; 17:23; 19:32; 20:16, 38; 23:5; 26:32; Rom. 7:7; 1 Jn. 2:19; Rev. 7:11

That includes LXX, as the BGM includes both. To search just the New Testament morphologically, use the BNM database - which yields these results with your query:


82 verses, 35 forms, 86 hits, 0.13 seconds


The list of references is:


Matt. 7:25; 12:7, 46; 13:2; 24:43; 25:26; 27:15, 18; Mk. 1:34; 9:6; 10:1; 14:40, 44; 15:7, 10; 16:9; Lk. 2:49; 4:29, 41; 6:8; 8:2, 29, 38; 11:22; 12:39; 16:20; 19:15, 22; 22:13; 23:10, 35, 49; Jn. 1:31, 33, 35; 2:9; 4:8, 10; 5:13; 6:6, 17, 64; 7:30, 37; 8:19f; 9:22; 11:13, 19, 30, 42, 44, 57; 13:11; 18:2, 5, 16, 18; 19:25; 20:9, 11, 14; 21:4; Acts 1:10; 4:22; 7:18, 44; 8:27; 9:7, 21; 12:9; 14:23; 16:3; 17:23; 19:32; 20:16, 38; 23:5; 26:32; Rom. 7:7; 1 Jn. 2:19; Rev. 7:11

Hope that does help!

Blessings

Steve Watkins
04-27-2007, 10:02 PM
I said that the pluperfect is only used in the indicative mood...

Apparently that's only true in the New Testament. Running the query again in the BGM with the indicative tag included yeilded a different result than with it omitted - it amounts to a single LXX verse where the pluperfect is not indicative: 1 Chronicles 19:5, where ἀτιμόω is a passive, pluperfect participle (ἠτιμωμένοι). Isn't that interesting?