Biblical Hebrew Forum

[James Christian <jc.bhebrew AT googlemail.com>]

Hi Yitzhak,

Anti polaric. Ok! Let's say we have a phenomenon with variant spellings a)
and b). We have two corpora y) and z). In corpora z) spelling a) is most
frequent (bias to one pole). In corpora y) spelling b) is most frequent
(bias to the opposite pole).

In any case, I feel the need to clarify some misunderstanding you still seem
to have. You make reference to 'my position'. My 'position' is that I do not
have a position. My position is that there is not enough data in the
inscriptions nor in the b-hebrew corpus to know anything with any kind of
certainty. The best we can do is play the sort of game you are doing of
spotting patterns and attempting to reconstruct some kind of sensible model
that the data supports.

Your model may be great. It may be completely right. But then again it might
not be. We just don't know. Are your generalisations spot on? Or are they
over generalisations extracted from a corpus that is too small? We just
don't know and quite simply cannot know. The implications of this is that
however good and explanatory the model might be it cannot really be used as
a concrete assumption on which to base further reasoning.

Now, getting back to the missing Yodhs in gentilics. You still seem to be
refusing to deal with this phenomenon in isolation. You seem to still be
working with the assumption that all of the differences are related. This is
making it impossible for me to have a meaningful discussion with you.

Further, when questions are raised to highlight the problems with position
you are presenting you seem to immediately assume that the questions
represent a 'position'. I don't know if you've ever done a PhD Yitzhak but
when you meet with your supervisor and they ask you challenging questions
about your position this does not necessarily mean they are presenting a
position. They are just bringing to light possible criticisms that you need
to be in a position to handle. Again, your continued assumption that I have
a 'position' is also making it impossible to have a meaningful discussion
with you.

Now I'm not your supervisor. I'm probably not even your peer. You are
probably superior to me in every way. But you are failing to convince me
because you are not interacting with the possibility that missing Yodhs are
for convenience. Quoting different unrelated phenomenon just makes me
scratch my head and think 'why does he see this as relevant'.

Now, back to the discussion you raised some points worth commenting on. You
mentioned that not all inscriptions are carved in stone. You raise a good
point as this weakens the convenience question. Or does it? Graffiti writers
don't have to put much effort into spraying or scribbling with their marker
pens 'before' but the corpus seems to testify a preferred 'b4' form. Now,
when the Yitzhak Sapir of 2,000 into the future digs up a few slides in
parks of ancient Manchester but finds no books or recorded conversations is
he going to be touting on b-english mailing lists that b-english orthography
used a pre-exilic 'b4' form? Is he then going to be putting a late date on
Shakespeare because no b4 forms are found in Shakespeare? Is he going to
refuse any form of criticism based on the stark reality of data sparsity and
continue to form all conclusions on his assumptions? Is he going to continue
to observe that the more slides in parked unearthed in the ancient ruins of
Nottingham and London only continue to demonstrate that in the 21st century
'b4' was the dominant orthography?

James Christian