But doesn't the problem of working with the corpus of a "dead" language hold
for any researcher in biblical Hebrew? Does that mean that drawing any
conclusions on semantic distinctions is therefore, futile?
I would say that the best research regimen would yield the best results
possible, even if not iron-clad. And such a best-case regimen is what I see
in
Rolf's work.
Solomon Landers
In a message dated 08/10/2005 3:40:18 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
peterkirk AT qaya.org writes:
Well, the difference is that you claim to
have examined all of the verb forms in a corpus. But a corpus is not the
whole of a language, it is simply a large body of sample data. And in
fact the more serious problem with using a corpus from a dead language
is that you have no way to determine which alternative sentences would
in fact be ungrammatical or have a distinct meaning. That is, you have
no access to native speaker insight. I would suggest that because of
this your method is incapable in principle of distinguishing real
semantic distinctions from pragmatic ones, and so incapable in principle
of falsifying your working hypothesis.