Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>]

Peter:

----- Original Message -----
From: "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!
> 
I don't see the logic of your argument here. What I claim is 
that there is not 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.
> 
On the contrary, it is because I see a unanimity of 
meaning in the Hebrew uses is why I see no room 
for the need to assume multiple roots. Therefore, 
cognate language evidence is weak at best.

> > 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/

Jack, as I understand him, claims that the basic meaning 
for XRM involves cutting; hence slaughter, mutilation, and 
figuratively consecrating. If his meaning is correct (and I'm 
still considering it) then its use in Leviticus 21:18 to refer to  
a mutilated priest not being allowed to serve at the altar, is 
part of the mainstream meaning of the lexeme, not an 
outlier calling for a separate root. That is positive evidence 
that nullifies this use as evidence for a separate root.

Evidence that Arabic has two roots becomes moot when 
there is no evidence that two roots are used in Hebrew.

Do you agree or disagree with Jack's definition of XRM 
and why?

Karl W. Randolph.


-- 
___________________________________________________
Play 100s of games for FREE! http://games.mail.com/