Timeline for What does Cain say to Abel in Genesis 4:8?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 17, 2020 at 9:51 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Apr 12, 2012 at 7:05 | vote | accept | Ron Maimon | ||
| Apr 12, 2012 at 7:04 | comment | added | Ron Maimon | @JackDouglas: You're right, I was far overestimating the precision, because on what I thought was a dual grammar error, where there is only one grammar error. I had gotten too used to seeing it as an obvious redaction. | |
| Apr 12, 2012 at 7:03 | comment | added | Ron Maimon | You are completely right, and I deleted my comments that claim that "the field" is likely to require a field referent. I was just not thinking, and I apologize. | |
| Apr 12, 2012 at 7:03 | history | edited | Ron Maimon | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
reevaluate in light of Monica Cellio's comments
|
| Apr 12, 2012 at 6:29 | comment | added | Ron Maimon | @Monica: No, I was totally wrong, you were right, it just took me a few hours to appreciate it--- it is natural in modern and ancient Hebrew both, just as it is in English. I was thrown off by the fact that I already expected a "field" in the missing dialog. I should readjust my probabilities then, but the first grammar error is real. | |
| Apr 12, 2012 at 0:18 | comment | added | Ron Maimon | @Monica: That's a Hebrew style phrase--- "hineh to'eh ba'sadeh"(here is a lost fellow in the field"), "im tizaher ba'cvish"(If you are careful on the road), "nagi'a ba-zman" (we will arive in (the)time). It sometimes works in English too, like the first two examples, although a little more in Hebrew. If you choose to interpret "ve-cshehayu ba-sadeh" in this way, it does become grammatical, although unnatural (I wouldn't have read it this way except for your prompting--- it's like a computer parsing--- surprising--- but ok). I agree that this does render the second half grammatical. | |
| Apr 11, 2012 at 18:44 | history | edited | Ron Maimon | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
rephrase
|
| Apr 11, 2012 at 18:36 | comment | added | Ron Maimon | If anything, I am way underestimating the precision of textual analysis. You don't have an appreciation for the exponential explosion of language--- the sheer number of possible texts--- any text at all is an insane amount of information, and there is much more information in the word-choice and grammar than in the meaning as extracted in the highest level. This allows author identification, and redaction identification, which is all I am doing. | |
| Apr 11, 2012 at 18:34 | history | edited | Ron Maimon | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
make clear the error
|
| Apr 11, 2012 at 18:10 | comment | added | Jack Douglas | I think you are overestimating the precision of your experimental apperatus | |
| Apr 11, 2012 at 18:01 | comment | added | Ron Maimon | @JonEricson: I'm rounding down to four significant figures, and to this accuracy, this value is correct. It is for all intents and purposes certain. | |
| Apr 11, 2012 at 17:53 | comment | added | Jon Ericson | -1 for "0% chance". When it comes to history, that is nonsensical. | |
| Apr 11, 2012 at 17:39 | history | edited | Ron Maimon | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
expand
|
| Apr 10, 2012 at 1:12 | history | answered | Ron Maimon | CC BY-SA 3.0 |