Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>]

On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 3:27 AM, George Athas wrote:
> Karl, I'm not sure how you're defining 'complexity' here, but I'd beg to 
> differ on
> that one.

On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 3:50 AM, Dave Washburn wrote:
> Like you, I'm not sure what Karl means by "complexity" so I'm going to hold 
> off
> comment until I get more info (hint hint, Karl :-)

On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 10:13 AM, Karl Randolph wrote:
> Skimming through the article, and checking all the times “complex” is used,
> he is using “complex” to refer to grammatical structures, I use it in this
> context to refer to literary style, some of which I named.
[...]
> Again, different definition of “complex”.

So a different definition of 'complexity' too...  But even so, exactly
how do you
prove your own basic assumption -- that have a complex text and a later 
simpler
text invariably implies that the later text was written by people who were not
native speakers?  This is a basic assumption which only you hold, and which
directly impinges upon the validity of your necessarily divergent conclusions
about what counts as evidence and what the evidence suggests.  I'm not saying
it's not true in some cases that some non-native speakers will use simpler
language.  But you are making a far wider statement -- your assumption is
that simpler language necessarily implies non-native speakers, or 
alternatively
makes the possibility non-native speakers to be very likely.  I think this
assumption is wrong and unsound.

Yitzhak Sapir