PDA

View Full Version : Search Help and Suggestions



ISalzman
09-16-2009, 09:12 AM
I would like to do a search on the collocation of the verb אמן
followed by the preposition

בְּ



I remember reading the book Bruce Demarest (Denver Seminary), Salvation and the Cross. In it he asserts that whenever the above collocation is found, it always refers to trusting, salvific faith. (John Walton disagrees) I am usually wary when writers make blanket statements and am inclined, like the Bereans, to check them out myself. So I wanted to know how best to run such a search in BibleWorks. Is it something that can be done on the Command Line? Or must it be done using the GSE? Grateful if anyone could suggest how I could set up this search (or others like it) in BW. Demarest also commented on the different nuances of the verb pisteuw when it appears with epi, en, or takes its object in the dative, respectively. For the record, I have every respect for Demarest and his book on salvation was quite good.


One more thing: I'd like the above search to hit all stems of the verb 'aman and all forms of the preposition (for example, bet with a patach should not be excluded). Thanks for any suggestions.

bkMitchell
09-16-2009, 10:32 AM
I would like to do a search on the collocation of the verb אמן
followed by the preposition

בְּ

I'd like the above search to hit all stems of the verb 'aman and all forms of the preposition (for example, bet with a patach should not be excluded). Thanks for any suggestions.

In Bibleworks Help the following example is given:
'myhla rma

to search for:
any form of the lemma rma followed by any form of the lemma myhla. For Hebrew morphology searches, words which do not contain an "@'" (for Hebrew) or "%" (for Aramaic) are assumed to have a wildcard "@*" appended.

So, if I have understood you right then in WTM your command line search would look like this:
'אמן ב


I tried this search and these are the results I got


Gen. 15:6
Exod. 14:31
Num. 14:11
Num. 20:12
Deut. 1:32
Deut. 28:66
2 Ki. 17:14
2 Chr. 20:20
Neh. 8:6
Job 15:31
Job 24:22
Job 39:12
Ps. 78:22,32,37
Ps. 106:12
Prov. 26:25
Jer. 12:6
Mic. 7:5

I am not sure if you wanted a lemma or a Stem search? Plus, I am not very good at these types of searches yet.

ISalzman
09-16-2009, 10:59 AM
BK, does the search version have to be WTM? Could it also be WTT?

Dale A. Brueggemann
09-16-2009, 11:00 AM
'b@Pp* nma@v*

ISalzman
09-16-2009, 11:03 AM
'b@Pp* nma@v*

Thanks Dale. Must the search version be set to WTM? Or would WTT also work?

Adelphos
09-16-2009, 11:06 AM
Thanks Dale. Must the search version be set to WTM? Or would WTT also work?

WTT won't do morphology searches. That's why WTM exists, i.e., to do morphology searches.

ISalzman
09-16-2009, 11:10 AM
WTT won't do morphology searches. That's why WTM exists, i.e., to do morphology searches.

Thanks Scott. Is that the same thing as saying that you can only search WTT on specific forms and will return no hits on the lemma?

Adelphos
09-16-2009, 11:13 AM
Thanks Scott. Is that the same thing as saying that you can only search WTT on specific forms and will return no hits on the lemma?

No, because if you put your mouse over a wtt form (and right-click) there is an option to search on the lemma, but BW internally performs this with wtm, as it does with other types of searches under the hood, as it were.

EDIT: I meant to say, "...BW internally performs this with WTM..."

ISalzman
09-16-2009, 11:22 AM
No, because if you put your mouse over a wtt form (and right-click) there is an option to search on the lemma, but BW internally performs this with wtt, as it does with other types of searches under the hood, as it were.

What? Could you please restate that in English (i.e., without the computer geek)? Thanks Scott. Actually, maybe I should restate myself. What would happen if I used Dale's search syntax (see above) on the command line and ran the search using WTT as my search version? I'm just trying to understand this intuitively. Would there be any effective difference if (a) I ran Dale's search string using search version WTM, or (b) ran the same search string using WTT as my search version?

Adelphos
09-16-2009, 11:27 AM
What? Could you please restate that in English (i.e., without the computer geek)? Thanks Scott. Actually, maybe I should restate myself. What would happen if I used Dale's search syntax (see above) on the command line and ran the search using WTT as my search version? I'm just trying to understand this intuitively. Would there be any effective difference if (a) I ran Dale's search string using search version WTM, or (b) ran the same search string using WTT as my search version?

Read my "EDIT" in the above post first.

Now, go ahead and TRY to run Dale's search on the CL in WTT.

ISalzman
09-16-2009, 11:46 AM
'b@Pp* nma@v*

Dale, thanks. The search worked. But there is one minor problem. Your search string finds every reference where the two terms come together in a phrase. BUT, it will miss instances where the two terms occur together however in transposed order. In this case, for example, there is one verse where the preposition b precedes the verb 'aman. In other words, the command line search string will only find collocations of the two terms when they are found in the specific order of your search string. Is there any way to do a search that won't miss the collocation even if the terms are transposed? Farshtaist?

bkMitchell
09-16-2009, 11:50 AM
What? Could you please restate that in English (i.e., without the computer geek)?

ISalzman, I think one of the things Scott is trying to point out is that
WTM is a morphological database. Which means that it is tagged with grammatical information (and even accents too!:D)

WTT is not tagged, but it is linked to lexicons and other resources through Bibleworks. WTT is simply a the text of Hebrew Bible with vowels and accents. You can do many types of word and phrase searches on it. But, you can not do grammatical/morphological specific searches on it because it is not tagged with that information. You can simply search on word forms and letters as they are. No need to worry! After, you do a search on the WTM you can display the results in WTT or any other text.

In some other programs similar to BW (but not as powerful or fast as BW) they have one text that combines both the morphological and normal text data bases.

ISalzman
09-16-2009, 11:53 AM
Read my "EDIT" in the above post first.

Now, go ahead and TRY to run Dale's search on the CL in WTT.

Okay. I've revisited your earlier post and have seen your edit. The edit was crucial for a proper understanding of your post, as you can understand.

I've also tried to do the search in WTT and have found that having WTT as the search version prohibits one from entering the @ sign on the Command Line. I assume this was the result you wanted me to see?

One other thing: BK was correct in his earlier post. If you just enter the search term with WTT as the search version, it defaults to a lemma search. So, effectively, his search string prescription had the same result as Dale's.

Adelphos
09-16-2009, 11:53 AM
Well, bk explained it very well. I recommend that you go to section 57 in the BibleWorks Help File and then click on the WTM section. That should give you a lot of answers.

ISalzman
09-16-2009, 11:58 AM
ISalzman, I think one of the things Scott is trying to point out is that
WTM is a morphological database. Which means that it is tagged with grammatical information (and even accents too!:D)

WTT is not tagged, but it is linked to lexicons and other resources through Bibleworks. WTT is simply a the text of Hebrew Bible with vowels and accents. You can do many types of word and phrase searches on it. But, you can not do grammatical/morphological specific searches on it because it is not tagged with that information. You can simple search on word forms and letters as they are. No need to worry! After, you do a search on the WTM you can display the results in WTT or any other text.

In some other programs similar to BW (but not as powerful or fast as BW) they have one text that combines both the morphological and normal text data bases.

Thanks BK. You were correct in your earlier post. The search string you recommended actually returned all the forms of the verb 'aman and all forms of the preposition. In other words, it defaulted to a lemma search.

ISalzman
09-16-2009, 12:00 PM
So that one of my questions doesn't get missed - since there was a flurry and volley of posts since I asked it - does anyone have an answer for my question to Dale in the first post on this page?

bkMitchell
09-16-2009, 12:03 PM
Is there any way to do a search that won't miss the collocation even if the terms are transposed? Farshtaist?

I'm not Dale, but I'll give this one try. The comma(') at the end means to search only in the particular order you typed. But, a period/or dot(.)
at the end tells Bibleworks any order is okay. Actually, it doesn't tell it that, but it just tells it to search for those terms and no particular order is implied. Also, another cool:cool: thing you can add to the search is the number of words/letters between the to items you are searching for. Or you can search on accents and vowels! That's even cooler.

ISalzman
09-16-2009, 12:11 PM
I'm not Dale, but I'll give this one try. The comma(') at the end means to search only in the particular order you typed. But, a period/or dot(.)
at the end tells Bibleworks any order is okay. Actually, it doesn't tell it that, but it just tells it to search for those terms and no particular order is implied. Also, another cool:cool: thing you can add to the search is the number of words/letters between the to items you are searching for.

Yes, I knew that. If you run a search like this one however, limiting the number of words/letters between the two terms assumes great importance. I want what follows the preposition b to be the object of 'aman. If you had no intervening word limit, my search would probably return hundreds, if not thousands, of invalid hits. How many intervening words would you recommend? And how do you indicate intervening word limits in a Command Line string? Thanks much, BK.

Mark Eddy
09-16-2009, 11:27 PM
How many intervening words would you recommend? And how do you indicate intervening word limits in a Command Line string? Thanks much, BK.
Under the command line click on "Tools" and choose "Command Line Examples." 80% of the way down the list of examples you'll see some examples in BNM which you could also do in WTM.
But the short answer to your questions is that in order to have intervening words you type *2 or *3 etc. between your two chosen words for the number of words apart they may be. If you pick a number which you think is too small, you can export that list to the Verse List Manager, then do another search with a bigger number, and export that also to the VLM. Then you can compare the two verse lists to see which additional verses you might want to check by finding verses which are not in common in the two lists.
Alternatively, you can do an "and" search "." and then go through the list of verses and uncheck the verses you do not want to keep. When you are done, you can save the verse list. This takes longer, but you would be sure to get all the verses you want that way.
Mark Eddy

ISalzman
09-17-2009, 10:46 AM
Under the command line click on "Tools" and choose "Command Line Examples." 80% of the way down the list of examples you'll see some examples in BNM which you could also do in WTM.
But the short answer to your questions is that in order to have intervening words you type *2 or *3 etc. between your two chosen words for the number of words apart they may be. If you pick a number which you think is too small, you can export that list to the Verse List Manager, then do another search with a bigger number, and export that also to the VLM. Then you can compare the two verse lists to see which additional verses you might want to check by finding verses which are not in common in the two lists.
Alternatively, you can do an "and" search "." and then go through the list of verses and uncheck the verses you do not want to keep. When you are done, you can save the verse list. This takes longer, but you would be sure to get all the verses you want that way.
Mark Eddy

Thanks Mark! I'm not experienced when it comes to the VLM. But if I followed your suggestion above (of attempting two different intervening word ranges), is there a way to quickly and automatically locate and identify verses not common to both lists? Or must one painstakingly go down the two lists together and simultaneously to note discrepancies between the two lists? I hope I've made my question understandable. Once again, thanks for your reply.

Mark Eddy
09-17-2009, 10:39 PM
is there a way to quickly and automatically locate and identify verses not common to both lists?
Yes! In the Verse List Manager after you have imported your Main and Secondary verse lists, click on "Selection" and choose "Select verses not common to both lists." This will highlight those new verses, so that you can look at them quickly.

Or must one painstakingly go down the two lists together and simultaneously to note discrepancies between the two lists?
No, you do not have to note differences just by eyeballing it.
I am not the expert on the VLM. Others have used it much more than I. So, if after trying it out a few times you still have questions, perhaps they can guide you deeper.
One thing I had forgotten is that using *2 or *3 etc. works only for string searches (the ' command) and not for and searches (the . command). So, if you want to come up with a full list of the passages you seek, with b both before and after the verb, you will have to do the list comparison a number of times. Someone else may have found a quicker way to do this.
In Christ,
Mark Eddy

ISalzman
09-18-2009, 09:53 AM
Yes! In the Verse List Manager after you have imported your Main and Secondary verse lists, click on "Selection" and choose "Select verses not common to both lists." This will highlight those new verses, so that you can look at them quickly.

No, you do not have to note differences just by eyeballing it.
I am not the expert on the VLM. Others have used it much more than I. So, if after trying it out a few times you still have questions, perhaps they can guide you deeper.
One thing I had forgotten is that using *2 or *3 etc. works only for string searches (the ' command) and not for and searches (the . command). So, if you want to come up with a full list of the passages you seek, with b both before and after the verb, you will have to do the list comparison a number of times. Someone else may have found a quicker way to do this.
In Christ,
Mark Eddy

Thanks Mark. I will use your suggestions.

Dale A. Brueggemann
09-21-2009, 12:27 PM
Read my "EDIT" in the above post first.

Now, go ahead and TRY to run Dale's search on the CL in WTT.

LOL! That would be one step in the direction of getting an intuitive understanding of the difference between WTT and WTM wouldn't it ;o)