Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Dave Washburn" <dwashbur AT nyx.net>]

Bryan wrote in response to John:
>   As we
> > > analyze any one clause which seems to move forward the story time, the
> > > question is what mechanism or combination of mechanisms moves the story
> > > time forward.  In BH the wayyiqtol can do it by virtue of its inherent
> > > meaning.  I suppose the X-qatal may do it exceptionally by virtue of
> the
> > > reader's world knowledge, the reading process itself, and maybe some
> other
> > > stuff.
> > 
> > Bryan, I think one could say about the wayyiqtol form what you are saying
> about the X
> > + qatal.  I.e. the fact that the vast majority of verbs used to carry
> forward the
> > story line are wayyiqtols is dictated by something other than the
> inherent meaning of
> > the form.
> 
> Well, I don't hang all my hats on statistical analysis of BH verbs, but we
> are talking about overwhelming statistics here.  X-qatal expresses sequence
> a small minority of the time--no real surprise.  It is used to express
> simultaneity or anteriority of situations most of the time.  It is used to
> create a temporal frame into which a narrative fits many times.  On the
> other hand, we see less than 3% wayyiqtol which do not express sequence and
> which cannot be explained.  These aren't pretty good indications of
> inherent meaning?  I.e., my conclusion that X-qatal does not inherently
> express sequence is based on a small percentage of times that it does.  My
> best guess, that wayyiqtol does inherently express sequence, is based on
> the tiny percentage of times that it does not.  

Yes, but my question still stands: does that mean that sequence 
is a *necessary* feature of the verb form, or does this statistic 
come about because it's a verb form that simply happens to lend 
itself well to narrative?  If one argues that it is a necessary feature, 
then one needs to explain how one arrives at such a conclusion 
(using evidence beyond mere statistics).

> Liike I said, I am not totally sold on this type of statistical analysis,
> primarily because our corpus is a relatively small sample of a language. 
> So I do have a question:  what ratio of positive attestations to
> counter-examples invalidates a conclusion?  Is 90% good enough for a solid
> conclusion?  95%?  98%?  We'll never get 100% on anything will we?  (I feel
> like I am Abraham bargaining for the salvation of Sodom and Gomorrah.   ;-)

To my mind, counter-examples (that aren't in poetry) suggest 
there's something wrong with the hypothesis.  It may be something 
minor, it may be something major, but the presence of a fairly 
significant number of examples that don't fit the profile (whatever 
one considers "significant") suggests that the profile itself needs re-
examination.

Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
A Bible that's falling apart means a life that isn't.