/var/www/htdocs/pustaka-digital/lib/SearchEngine/SearchBiblioEngine.php:688 "Search Engine Debug 🔎 🪲"
Engine Type ⚙️: "SLiMS\SearchEngine\SearchBiblioEngine"
SQL ⚙️: array:2 [ "count" => "select count(sb.biblio_id) from search_biblio as sb where sb.opac_hide=0 and ((match (sb.author) against (:author in boolean mode)))" "query" => "select sb.biblio_id, sb.title, sb.author, sb.topic, sb.image, sb.isbn_issn, sb.publisher, sb.publish_place, sb.publish_year, sb.labels, sb.input_date, sb.edition, sb.collation, sb.series_title, sb.call_number from search_biblio as sb where sb.opac_hide=0 and ((match (sb.author) against (:author in boolean mode))) order by sb.last_update desc limit 10 offset 0" ]
Bind Value ⚒️: array:1 [ ":author" => "'+Gildea, Spike'" ]
During several decades, syntactic reconstruction has been more or less regarded as a bootless and an unsuccessful venture, not least due to the heavy criticism in the 1970s from scholars like Watkins, Jeffers, Lightfoot, etc. This fallacious view culminated in Lightfoot’s (2002: 625) conclusion: “[i]f somebody thinks that they can reconstruct grammars more successfully and in more widesprea…