Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17

Thread: A Hindrance to Phrase Searches

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,206

    Default A Hindrance to Phrase Searches

    All,

    I wanted to find every occurrence for the Hebrew phrase "Yom tov." (Sorry, no Hebrew fonts seem to be available in the updated Forums.) A Command Line search for the phrase returns only one hit (1 Samuel 25:8). The problem is that the phrase actually occurs two other times. However, since the other two occurrences of the phrase are prefixed by a coordinating vav (or waw, as some may prefer), they don't return as hits. This fact is severely limiting. Is there a way that this hindrance can be overcome? Grateful for any insight.

    It strikes me that a phrase search should not be disabled on account of the presence of a coordinating vav (or an inseparable preposition, for that matter!). The prefixed vav or preposition does not alter the fact or presence of the phrase. BibleWorks should be intuitive enough to pick up on this. This hindrance undermines the power and potential of the program to execute phrase searches with accurate results. Not trying to gripe here, but these are just my reflections and perceptions.
    Last edited by ISalzman; 03-08-2010 at 03:44 PM. Reason: Further thoughts

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,030

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ISalzman View Post
    It strikes me that a phrase search should not be disabled on account of the presence of a coordinating vav...
    It's not. You can use one or more ? to replicate one or more characters, or you can use the * to match all. In your case you would prefix one of those two marker(s) to your phrase, depending on exactly how you want to refine it.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,206

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adelphos View Post
    It's not. You can use one or more ? to replicate one or more characters, or you can use the * to match all. In your case you would prefix one of those two marker(s) to your phrase, depending on exactly how you want to refine it.
    Thanks. What if the entire phrase were pluralized? In other words, what would I do if I wanted to search for every occurrence of the phrase whether singular (Yom Tov) or plural (Yamim Tovim)? Is this a phrase search that could be executed from the CL?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,030

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ISalzman View Post
    Thanks. What if the entire phrase were pluralized? In other words, what would I do if I wanted to search for every occurrence of the phrase whether singular (Yom Tov) or plural (Yamim Tovim)? Is this a phrase search that could be executed from the CL?
    Without even breaking a sweat. I would suggest that you click on the GREEN Tools menu below the CL and then select Command Line Examples.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,206

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adelphos View Post
    Without even breaking a sweat. I would suggest that you click on the GREEN Tools menu below the CL and then select Command Line Examples.
    Okay. Thanks Scott.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    839

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ISalzman View Post
    All,

    I wanted to find every occurrence for the Hebrew phrase "Yom tov." (Sorry, no Hebrew fonts seem to be available in the updated Forums.) A Command Line search for the phrase returns only one hit (1 Samuel 25:8). The problem is that the phrase actually occurs two other times. However, since the other two occurrences of the phrase are prefixed by a coordinating vav (or waw, as some may prefer), they don't return as hits. This fact is severely limiting. Is there a way that this hindrance can be overcome? Grateful for any insight.
    I would do a phrase search using lemmas. i.e. user WTM instead of WTT.
    Mike

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,206

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MBushell View Post
    I would do a phrase search using lemmas. i.e. user WTM instead of WTT.
    Mike
    Yes, thanks Mike. I thought of that afterwards. I know that would work. I'm just trying to avoid the extra steps and having to insert all the additional codes.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    472

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ISalzman View Post
    I'm just trying to avoid the extra steps and having to insert all the additional codes.
    Okay, then here is what I'd do:
    (a) Open the WTM
    (b) go to 1 Samuel 25:28
    (c) In WTM Highlight
    יוֹם@ncmsa+SxxxExHaNxZyRx טוֹב@amsa+SxxxExHaNxZ0Rx


    (d) Right Click on your mouse
    (e)Then choose the 'search for Phrase' option
    (f) admire the 5 hits you receive

    Or you could simply type in the phrase you want to look for and using Adelphos' suggestion you could use the * in place of all the other codes. This would also work too in WTM. You can keep WTT as you display(reading) version and use the WTM as the search version.

    Grace and Peace
    Brian K. Mitchell
    חפשו בתורה היטב ואל תסתמכו על דברי
    http://www.adfontes.mitchellbk.com/


  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    539

    Default

    Hi Irving,

    I almost never run any searches over text versions when there is a companion morphology version. The real searching power is in the morph versions. They are much more flexible. With the popup Command Line Morph Helper, I don't have to memorize the codes. And I don't have to enter any codes at all if I want to search on a lemma, since not adding any codes means " @*", or "all codes". (In Hebrew you will probably want to at least specify noun or verb in the codes, though.)

    It is fine to search on the text versions if you wish, but as you found out, there are so many word form variations to take into account that it becomes difficult to find all the relevant hits.
    Glenn Weaver

    For technical support, please contact Customer Support.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    915

    Default

    Welcome back, Glenn!
    Just a reminder that it is good that BW can search both the text versions and the morphology versions (and can even have accent sensitive searches). There are times when you may want to find an exact phrase or even exact cantillation. Searching a morphology version in that case would show far too many hits. We just have to remember which kind of version is best for which kind of search.
    Mark Eddy

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •