Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>]

On 20/09/2005 14:06, Vadim Cherny wrote:

> > > Peter, you need to read something on logic and scientific methods.
> > > Every hypothesis can be proved false. It is especially easy with 
> > > mine: just bring any examples where the use of yiqtol is meaningless 
> > > if we read it either as future tense (with deictic shift, if it is 
> > > contextually clear) or in idiomatic meaning.
> >
> >
> > No, your hypothesis cannot be proved false if you answer every 
> > counter-example by proposing a deictic shift for which there is zero 
> > evidence, or else that every attested sense of a word like "would" 
> > has an "idiomatic meaning" and the word in fact means something for 
> > which it is never used.
> I wote several times that I imagine only two possible ways to prove 
> deictic shift: psychoanalysis of a writer and analyzing the context. 
> Deictic shifts I mentioned are contextually plausible. ...


In some cases, maybe, in other cases, no. Anyway, you need to do better 
than to say that the deictic shift is plausible, you need to demonstrate 
that it has actually occurred. If you are unable to do this in 
principle, your hypothesis is not falsifiable.

> ... As for the idiomatic meaning, I adduce Russian and, where 
> possible, close English examples that show such idioms plausible.


The usages are plausible, but you have not proved that the English ones 
are idioms rather than the core meanings of "would".

> You really need to learn about scientific methods.
No, I don't. We agree that a hypothesis must be falsifiable to be 
properly scientific. What we disagree on is whether this particular 
hypothesis is falsifiable.

--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.3/106 - Release Date: 19/09/2005