As many seem to be, I'm also trying to improve my syntax search skills, and am trying to understand what's going on with a search I've constructed. I've seen all of the posts people have attempted on TSKS (Granville-Sharp) and figured I'd try one using participles...I started piecemeal, making sure I'd get results at each step. My first try was a very simple "find an articular participle" (included in pic 1). One of the hits was Matt 7:26, and so I decided to use this to model my next search. Here's the rub: every child node I've tried to place subordinate to the clause (even if it's *only* an "anything") it turns up zero results. I'm not looking for a search that works here - I'm more interested in understanding the mechanism as far as why this isn't working (even with skip levels). I'd even be happy if Matt 7:26 were the only hit pulled...albeit surprised as Eph 2:14 has a similar structure. Thanks! Mike
- To questions 1, I would say yes. Why? I have to be honest and say I don't know. It works whereas the other search doesn't as we both found out. Why doesn't it? Again, I don't know. Welcome to some parts of syntax searching. I've found there isn't an answer to all of it so I just go with what works even if it doesn't fully make sense to me. Terrible answer. But, that's what I've learned. But, there could be someone better equip to answer. @devinroza @rick-brannan-personal @logos-rick-brannan
- I'm not sure either why it doesn't work. I tried some other combos I thought for sure would work, with the same problem of getting 0 hits as soon as I add something below the clause. My guess is it is a bug / limitation, having to do with the Agreement settings needing to be on the lowest level, as Ryan's working search would seem to indicate. BTW, on the Documents tab there is a GS search for participles already finished, that can save you a lot of work. :)
- Thanks for looking at this! Honestly I am more interested in understanding how to do the search than the results at the moment, so was less interested in already-existing templates and wondering more about the dynamics...it seems to me that it should work as well...and I'm ok with a limitation of agreement needing to be on the lowest level as long as this is a consistent rule. Thanks for looking and weighing in!