PDA

View Full Version : Glitch with search limits?



ericjdaniels
10-23-2004, 03:06 PM
Often, when I set search limits, BW says that the word doesn't occur. But I know that it does. So I have to go in, remove the limits, and let BW search and find the words I knew were there. Then I normally go back in, reapply the limits, and it works??!!??

Anyone else with this issue. It happened to me today while trying to limit a search to Mark. I had to go in and remove the limits, and go through what I just mentioned.

Let me know if I am missing something here, or if anyone else has this issue. Is it a glitch?

Thanks,

Eric Daniels

Joe Fleener
10-23-2004, 07:32 PM
I have never had anything like this...it is hard to tell if it is glitch without specific details.

Could you provide the word/lemma/form you were searching for and the steps you followed?

Philip Brown
10-23-2004, 10:03 PM
Often, when I set search limits, BW says that the word doesn't occur. But I know that it does. So I have to go in, remove the limits, and let BW search and find the words I knew were there. Then I normally go back in, reapply the limits, and it works??!!??

Hi, Eric,

In addition to supplying us with the word you were searching for, it would be nice to know what version of BW you are using.

I don't ever remember this happening in any version of BW I've used.

ericjdaniels
10-24-2004, 08:32 PM
I have a theory. When things go wrong...most of the time the problem is me.

My theory proves correct here.

So, I have BW6. I had BGT as my search version. I would search for a word. The lexical form of the word. It came up with nothing! So I would undo the limits. Type in the lexical form again...search...it came up with hits. I would then redo the limits, right click on the word, and do a LEMMA search, which would then show my words within the limits I set.

Here is what I realized. BW automatically uses the morph. version to do lemma searches. So I was typing in the lexical forms into BGT. As far as BGT was concerned, the word never showed up because its lexical form never did.

So, again...my theory is correct. At least I can be right about something!

Thanks for the help anyway guys.

Blessings,

Eric