[b-hebrew] Lev 21:18 - Passive Participle
peter at qaya.org
Mon Oct 31 13:27:25 EST 2005
On 31/10/2005 18:05, Karl Randolph wrote:
>It was in logic that I first heard the argument that it is a
>fallacy to assume that a lack of evidence merely means
>that we lack evidence of something that exists. Rather we
>must leave open the possibility that a lack of evidence is
>evidence of lack, that that something does not exist. In the
>latter case, lack of evidence is a positive (of a negation)
>not a negative (don't have the data).
Yes, but a lack of evidence is no longer evidence of anything when there
is no longer a lack of evidence, but rather there is evidence even if it
is of poor quality or questionable relevance. It is clearly a fallacy to
use this "lack of evidence" argument when there is no longer a lack of
>When there is positive evidence from within a language
>contrasted to positive evidence from a cognate language,
>I claim that internal evidence trumps cognate language
>evidence all the time.
I would disagree in cases where the internal evidence is very weak, or
non-existent as in this case, and the cognate language evidence is
strong and irrefutable.
>In the case of XRM, I see positive evidence that one basic
>meaning fits all uses, therefore there is no evidence for
>more than one root and none needed, therefore the lack
>of evidence is evidence of lack, i.e. that there was no more
>than one root used in Biblical Hebrew.
What positive evidence? I have seen no positive evidence at all, merely
a lack of clear evidence to the contrary, and some rather implausible
attempts to relate two rather different sets of meanings.
peter at qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk at qaya.org (work)
More information about the b-hebrew