Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peter AT qaya.org>]

On 31/10/2005 18:05, Karl Randolph wrote:

> Peter:
>
> 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 
evidence!

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