Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Searching for identical, consecutive forms - how?

  1. #1

    Default Searching for identical, consecutive forms - how?

    This must have come up before, but forum searches are failing to turn it up.

    I know about command-line searches like:

    Code:
    '#1 #1
    and that these can have the @... grammatical specifiers attached to them. What I'm having trouble working out is how to find two consecutive instances of the same verb. For example, the search above will find things like בָּג֣וֹד תִּבְגּ֔וֹד in Isa 48:8, which is the Inf Abs plus finite form. I want to limit the search to examples like עוּרִ֥י עוּרִ֛י in Isa 52:1 where the same verb form is repeated, not knowing (or specifying) in advance what the actual form might be in any given case.

    Is it possible? Any help appreciated!
    Last edited by doc_dave; 03-02-2015 at 07:11 AM. Reason: clarify

  2. #2

    Default

    I think I worked it out with the graphical search engine (query attached). If anyone has a more elegant or effective way of doing this, I'd be glad to know!

    same-verb-forms-consecutive.qf

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    167

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by doc_dave View Post
    This must have come up before, but forum searches are failing to turn it up.

    I know about command-line searches like:

    Code:
    '#1 #1
    and that these can have the @... grammatical specifiers attached to them. What I'm having trouble working out is how to find two consecutive instances of the same verb. For example, the search above will find things like בָּג֣וֹד תִּבְגּ֔וֹד in Isa 48:8, which is the Inf Abs plus finite form. I want to limit the search to examples like עוּרִ֥י עוּרִ֛י in Isa 52:1 where the same verb form is repeated, not knowing (or specifying) in advance what the actual form might be in any given case.

    Is it possible? Any help appreciated!
    Hello Dave,

    If I've understood your question correctly, you should be able to do what you want pretty much with what you've said. I tried this:

    ;#1@v* #1@v*

    This gives you verbs that are immediately repeated in the text, no matter what form each one has (including Isa 52.1). Is this what you're looking for?

    BTW, once you've made your construction, you can click on the GSE. This will reproduce your chain, and from there, it's good to double-click on either "qere" or "kethib". This will eliminate places in the WTM text where BW has placed the two readings together but that don't really correspond to what you are trying to find.

    Hope that can help.

    Don Cobb
    Aix-en-Provence, France

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    167

    Default

    Oh, wait! I see what you mean! Actually, it needs to be the same form of the verb, right?

    In that case, you may have to take the GSE route directly. You can try ;#1 #1 but in the WTT, and make the search Hebrew accent-sensitive. Then only words that are identical will show up. This limits your search to 209 hits in the OT, but it is obviously not limited to verbs.

    However, you can also do what I mentioned in my first response with one more element: i.e., choose WTM, then type in the search window:

    ;#1@v* #1@v*

    Then from there, click on the GSE. This will give you GSE's way of doing the query. From there, you just need to double-click on "all words agree" and then on "entire morphology".

    That gives me 43 hits. Is this the same method you've found?

    Don
    Last edited by Donald Cobb; 03-02-2015 at 09:25 AM.

  5. #5

    Default

    There is another way...
    It's fast and easy, but I don't know that it will give you exactly the results you want.

    Use WTM
    Search on: '#1@v* #1@v* =sapgns

    The trick is the =s[tate]a[spect]p[erson]g[ender]n[umber]s[tate] which is telling the search that those all have to match the search elements.
    I get 65 results this way, but I think it's because infinitives throw things off a bit.
    The GSE that you came up with, docdave, is probably more accurate, because you were able to specify that entire morphology had to match.
    Mark G. Vitalis Hoffman
    Professor of Biblical Studies
    Lutheran Theological Seminary at Gettysburg
    ltsg.edu - CrossMarks.com
    Biblical Studies and Technological Tools

  6. #6

    Default

    Thanks, all, for the replies here. For the record, my "same-verb-forms-consecutive.qf" attached in post #2 produces 42 hits in 38 verses:

    Gen. 43:14; Num. 8:16; Jdg. 5:12; 2 Sam. 16:7; 20:16; 2 Ki. 6:21; 1 Chr. 24:6; Est. 4:16; Job 19:21; Ps. 25:3; 47:7; 68:13, 23; 93:1; 94:23; 115:12; 137:7; Prov. 9:12; 30:15; Eccl. 1:6; Cant. 7:1; Isa. 21:2, 9; 40:1; 51:9, 17; 52:1, 11; 57:14; 62:10; Jer. 23:25; 46:20; Lam. 4:15; Ezek. 3:1; 7:6; 33:11; Nah. 2:9; Hag. 1:6

    This search:

    Code:
    '#1@v* #1@v* =sapgns
    in my BWks 9 finds 173 (!) verses.

    I guess this really is a job for the GSE, so thanks for the input. Much appreciated!
    Last edited by doc_dave; 03-09-2015 at 09:16 AM.

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by doc_dave View Post
    Thanks, all, for the replies here. For the record, my "same-verb-forms-consecutive.qf" attached in post #2 produces 42 hits in 38 verses:

    Gen. 43:14; Num. 8:16; Jdg. 5:12; 2 Sam. 16:7; 20:16; 2 Ki. 6:21; 1 Chr. 24:6; Est. 4:16; Job 19:21; Ps. 25:3; 47:7; 68:13, 23; 93:1; 94:23; 115:12; 137:7; Prov. 9:12; 30:15; Eccl. 1:6; Cant. 7:1; Isa. 21:2, 9; 40:1; 51:9, 17; 52:1, 11; 57:14; 62:10; Jer. 23:25; 46:20; Lam. 4:15; Ezek. 3:1; 7:6; 33:11; Nah. 2:9; Hag. 1:6

    This search:

    Code:
    '#1@v* #1@v* =sapgns
    in my BWks 9 finds 173 (!) verses.

    I guess this really is a job for the GSE, so thanks for the input. Much appreciated!
    Hmm...? I'm only 65 verses, namely: Gen. 43:14; Num. 8:16; Jdg. 5:12; 7:10; 18:10; 1 Sam. 23:20; 2 Sam. 6:20; 15:8; 16:7; 20:16; 2 Ki. 6:21; 1 Chr. 24:6; Neh. 1:7; Est. 4:16; Job 19:21; Ps. 25:3; 35:15; 37:40; 47:7; 50:21; 68:13, 23; 93:1; 94:23; 115:12; 137:7; Prov. 8:35; 9:12; 26:17; 30:15; Eccl. 1:6; Cant. 7:1; Isa. 21:2, 9; 26:5, 11; 33:1; 40:1; 51:9, 17; 52:1, 11; 57:14; 62:10; Jer. 23:25; 40:5; 46:20; 49:8, 30; 51:3; Lam. 4:15; Ezek. 1:12, 17, 20-21; 3:1; 7:6; 10:17; 30:16; 33:11; 46:10; Nah. 2:9; Hab. 1:5; Hag. 1:6; Zech. 6:7
    Mark G. Vitalis Hoffman
    Professor of Biblical Studies
    Lutheran Theological Seminary at Gettysburg
    ltsg.edu - CrossMarks.com
    Biblical Studies and Technological Tools

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    217

    Default Do you want Kethib, Qere, or both readings?

    The difference in hits is this:
    a. Doc Dave was including both Kethib and Qere in his search. 173 verses
    b. MGVH included only Kethib in his search. 65 verses
    c. Including only Qere gives 61 verses.
    d. Excluding both Kethib and Qere gives 61 verses.

    Using Doc Dave's GSE query gave 38 verses, 42 hits
    All Kethib and Qere readings would be excluded from this query, since the K/Q marker is part of the complete morphology that is being compared, unless you have two adjacent identical K's or Q's.

    To get around this I tried this alteration to DD's query:

    Name:  QSE.jpg
Views: 43
Size:  100.5 KB

    (He had only Lemma and Entire morphology boxes checked.)

    I ran this with both Q and K excluded, and found 40 verses with 44 hits.
    The two additional verses were Psa 35:15, which has a note tagged in the morphology, and Isa 26:5, which has a suffix energic nun in the first verb, but not in the second. Seems to me the Isaiah one should not have shown up, since I checked that box.

    I then unchecked the Reading box, and ran the query with K included, getting 43 verses and 47 hits. (3 K's picked up)
    When I ran it with only Q included, I was back to 40 verses and 44 hits (no Q's picked up)

    When I ran it with both K and Q included, I got 108 verses and 117 hits, 68 more verses. I checked a few of these, and they were different forms that were mapped to the same lemma. Here is the list:Gen. 8:17; Jos. 9:7; Jdg. 9:8, 12; 1 Sam. 10:7; 25:18; 28:8; 2 Sam. 5:2; 14:7; 1 Ki. 10:5; 17:14; 21:21, 29; 2 Ki. 4:5, 23; 11:1; 13:6; 1 Chr. 15:24; 2 Chr. 5:12; 7:6; 13:14; 29:28; Ezr. 10:44; Job 1:21; Ps. 5:8; 18:50; 24:6; 26:2; 38:20; 71:12; 89:28; 90:8; 101:5; 140:12; Prov. 3:30; 8:35; 22:8, 14; 23:6, 24; 24:1; Isa. 3:16; 18:4; 26:20; 44:17; Jer. 1:5; 4:5; 5:7; 7:22; 8:1; 10:17; 19:15; 22:23; 32:35; 39:16; 51:3, 9, 13; Lam. 4:21; Ezek. 16:13, 18, 22, 31, 43, 47, 51; Dan. 9:5; Hos. 8:12

    --Jim

    P.S. My take is that the QSE is generally to be preferred over command line for this sort of query. Things like #n and =codes feel a bit klugie. They are lightly documented, and when I played with them they behaved unexpectedly. By the way, Mark, your query behaves the same without the second s. The documentation only describes one S.

    P.P.S. Another argument for QSE in this case -- the command line query results were not picked up by the Stats window.
    Last edited by Jim Wert; 03-10-2015 at 01:43 PM. Reason: Added P.P.S

  9. #9

    Thumbs up @Jim Wert

    Many thanks for the explanation and the further probing in fine-tuning the GSE query. Very helpful!

Posting Permissions

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