[b-hebrew] Consecutive waw in Lev .22:7 ?

Peter Kirk peterkirk at qaya.org
Mon Sep 29 12:16:18 EDT 2003

On 29/09/2003 08:42, Ken Penner wrote:

>Hi Peter,
>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, and 
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 
hope not.

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 
"uncertain" category.

NB I didn't actually find the pilot project. Do I need to be a Yahoo 
member to find that?

Peter Kirk
peter at qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk at qaya.org (work)

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list