[b-hebrew] Consecutive waw in Lev .22:7 ?
peterkirk at qaya.org
Mon Sep 29 12:16:18 EDT 2003
On 29/09/2003 08:42, Ken Penner wrote:
>The methodological problem of circularity is indeed significant, but not
>enough to be called a "flaw". I am not sure how Rolf deals with the issue,
>but it is my experience (analyzing Qumran Hebrew verbs) that context is more
>helpful than one may have expected. My pilot project (available from the
>link in the signature) notes only 6 instances (out of 96 verbs) where the
>time reference is ambiguous in 1QSa. Circularity in the statistical
>correlation between form and meaning can be minimized by noting those
>ambiguous cases and leaving them out of the primary analysis.
>So you are technically right, "some" verbs but not "all" verbs have a clear
>contextual time reference. However, that "some" is the majority, and enough
>to make a strong statistical case.
>Ken Penner, McMaster/DSS
Well, Ken, I am glad to see that you have identified the issue (see
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PennerThesis/message/2 section 2) and have
clearly stated a methodology intended to minimise the problem (same
section Methodology). You are of course correct to restrict your
analysis to those verbs whose temporal reference you can be reasonably
sure of, although you need to watch out for some statistical bias
introduced by this. I still feel you are being rather optimistic, but I
But your method needs to be clearly distinguished from that of Rolf who
boasts that he has determined the temporal reference of "*all* the
verbs of the Tanakh" and doesn't seem to have left even a small
NB I didn't actually find the pilot project. Do I need to be a Yahoo
member to find that?
peter at qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk at qaya.org (work)
More information about the b-hebrew