[b-hebrew] tenses; frequency

Awohili at aol.com Awohili at aol.com
Wed Aug 10 09:00:31 EDT 2005

But doesn't the problem of working with the corpus of a "dead" language  hold 
for any researcher in biblical Hebrew?  Does that mean that drawing  any 
conclusions on semantic distinctions is therefore, futile?  
I would say that the best research regimen would yield the best results  
possible, even if not iron-clad.  And such a best-case regimen is what I  see in 
Rolf's work.
Solomon Landers
In a message dated 08/10/2005 3:40:18 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
peterkirk at qaya.org writes:

Well, the  difference is that you claim to 
have examined all of the verb forms in a  corpus. But a corpus is not the 
whole of a language, it is simply a large  body of sample data. And in 
fact the more serious problem with using a  corpus from a dead language 
is that you have no way to determine which  alternative sentences would 
in fact be ungrammatical or have a distinct  meaning. That is, you have 
no access to native speaker insight. I would  suggest that because of 
this your method is incapable in principle of  distinguishing real 
semantic distinctions from pragmatic ones, and so  incapable in principle 
of falsifying your working  hypothesis.

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list