Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [Synoptic-L] counts of word tokens

Expand Messages
  • Ronald Price
    ... Rick et al., It might be worth noting that the figure here for Mark includes both the longer and shorter endings, whose originality is denied even by the
    Message 1 of 20 , May 9, 2013
      Rick Hubbard wrote:

      > If I do a ³naked² (ignoring periscope assignments) word count of the Synoptics
      > I arrive at this:
      >
      > MT 18,346
      >
      > MK 11,304
      >
      > LK 19,482
      >
      > Total 49,132
      >
      > That leads me to believe the underlying database is correct since the results
      > cohere to Kenny¹s and with Frieberg¹s.

      Rick et al.,

      It might be worth noting that the figure here for Mark includes both the
      longer and shorter endings, whose originality is denied even by the modern
      text's editors.

      Mark 1:1 to 16:8 in NA27/UBS3 has 11099 Greek words.

      Ron Price,

      Derbyshire, UK

      http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Rick Hubbard
      Hi Ron Yes, you are of course correct about the longer ending of MK (SQE section 353) but at this juncture what I am wrestling with is why I can’t generate
      Message 2 of 20 , May 9, 2013
        Hi Ron



        Yes, you are of course correct about the longer ending of MK (SQE section
        353) but at this juncture what I am wrestling with is why I can’t generate
        accurate numbers when sub-totaling word counts by pericope. Clearly there is
        something awry on MY end of this but I will get to the bottom of it if for
        no other reason than that David Inglis asked a question to which there
        should be an «easy» answer.



        Rick Hubbard



        From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
        Of Ronald Price
        Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2013 6:29 AM
        To: Synoptic-L
        Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] counts of word tokens





        Rick Hubbard wrote:

        > If I do a ³naked² (ignoring periscope assignments) word count of the
        Synoptics
        > I arrive at this:
        >
        > MT 18,346
        >
        > MK 11,304
        >
        > LK 19,482
        >
        > Total 49,132
        >
        > That leads me to believe the underlying database is correct since the
        results
        > cohere to Kenny¹s and with Frieberg¹s.

        Rick et al.,

        It might be worth noting that the figure here for Mark includes both the
        longer and shorter endings, whose originality is denied even by the modern
        text's editors.

        Mark 1:1 to 16:8 in NA27/UBS3 has 11099 Greek words.

        Ron Price,

        Derbyshire, UK

        http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • David Mealand
        ... It might be worth noting that the figure here for Mark includes both the longer and shorter endings, whose originality is denied even by the modern text s
        Message 3 of 20 , May 9, 2013
          Ron rightly comments:
          --------
          It might be worth noting that the figure here for Mark includes
          both the longer and shorter endings, whose originality is denied
          even by the modern text's editors.
          -------

          The Fribergs' text which is one of the most useful for this
          kind of thing does include these, and also other contested
          items. If extras are there, they can be removed before doing
          a specific count, but if they aren't there you couldn't count
          them if you did need to do so. (For example there are also some 80
          instances of words in square brackets.) When processing text for
          counts one has to think about this sort of thing. Someone
          looking at the rival endings of Mark would wish to have these
          in the database before setting up specific files for counts.

          With agreements between two or more texts the biggest cause of trouble
          is probably the difference between exact and partial agreements.
          Poirier's article definitely pays a lot of attention to those
          who have wrestled with that, and the items by Abakuks should
          also be noted.

          David M.


          ---------
          David Mealand, University of Edinburgh


          --
          The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
          Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
        • Rick Hubbard
          OK, Thanks to the general embarrassment of releasing some bogus data yesterday, I resolved to find the glitch in the database and after an all-nighter
          Message 4 of 20 , May 9, 2013
            OK,



            Thanks to the general embarrassment of releasing some bogus data yesterday,
            I resolved to find the glitch in the database and after an "all-nighter"
            (something I'm WAY too old for) I finally got to the bottom of the problem
            and now can submit to legitimate numbers in partial answer to David's
            initial questions:





            GROUP MT MK LK TOTALS

            MT [ - ] [ - ] 5,756 N/A N/A 5,756

            [ - ] [ - ] LK N/A N/A 9,859 9,859

            [ - ] MK [ - ] N/A 507 N/A 507

            MT MK [ - ] 2,975 2,978 0 5,953

            MT [ - ] LK 2,450 0 2,365 4,815

            [ - ] MK LK N/A 1,187 1,041 2,228

            MT MK LK 7,165 6,632 6,217 20,014



            TOTALS

            MT 18,346

            MK 11,304

            LK 19,482

            All 49,132





            Given the unpredictability of email software, I am hopeful the above is
            legible



            Rick Hubbard



            From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
            Of E Bruce Brooks
            Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2013 4:04 PM
            To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: RE: [Synoptic-L] counts of word tokens





            The numbers looked a little strange to me also. Rick, could you provide the
            total counts for each of the Synoptics, from that same database?

            Thanks,

            Bruce

            E Bruce Brooks
            University of Massachusetts at Amherst





            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • David Mealand
            Rick s revised figures do now indicate that all the words in the three Greek texts are included in the totals. That is a big hurdle now cleared. It sounds
            Message 5 of 20 , May 9, 2013
              Rick's revised figures do now indicate that
              all the words in the three Greek texts are
              included in the totals. That is a big hurdle
              now cleared.

              It sounds ungrateful to press further questions
              but this is how progress is made. David Inglis
              quite rightly asked why the figures in each row
              differ between the columns.

              For example in the row for items present in
              Matthew // Mark we now have 2975 for Matthew
              but 2978 for Mark - a very minor difference.
              But in the row for Mark // Luke a greater difference:
              1187 vs 1041.
              Once again it is easy for me to ask a naive question
              but I am well aware that obtaining a good answer
              can take a lot of effort.

              Another way of pressing this kind of issue would be this.
              Andris Abakuks' table enumerates all Mark's words and
              in the next columns whether or not Matthew and Luke
              have an equivalent. If I read it correctly these total
              4716 and 3057 respectively. The equivalent figures
              from Rick's table would yield 9610 (Mk) 10140 (Mt)
              and 7819 (Mk) and 7258 (Lk).

              I may not have interpreted this correctly, but if
              that is any where near right, then AA's table is
              presumably using a very tight definition of an equivalent
              word, and Rick is perhaps accepting that two
              words are equivalent even if they are differently inflected
              or not in the same sequence.
              Is that possible? Or is the explanation quite different?

              David M.


              ---------
              David Mealand, University of Edinburgh


              --
              The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
              Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
            • David Mealand
              I think the lower figures for agreements in the table by Abakuks are due to paying more attention both to the sequence of words, and to exact equivalence. He
              Message 6 of 20 , May 10, 2013
                I think the lower figures for agreements in the table by Abakuks
                are due to paying more attention both to the sequence of words,
                and to exact equivalence. He gives details of his method in an
                article in JRSS 2012. (Also he concludes at Mark 16.8)

                David M.




                ---------
                David Mealand, University of Edinburgh


                --
                The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
                Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
              • David Inglis
                So far, such replies as I have seen (thank you) concentrate on word counts. These will, of course, vary depending on which variants are or are not counted, and
                Message 7 of 20 , May 10, 2013
                  So far, such replies as I have seen (thank you) concentrate on word counts. These will, of course, vary depending on
                  which variants are or are not counted, and so there really is no single answer. However, for my purposes word counts are
                  (at the moment at least) taking me down into detail I don't need, and so for now I'm concentrating just on verses. If
                  this proves unsatisfactory, I'm going to drop down to clauses (I think). Anyway, for now these are the verse counts
                  (round numbers) I'm using for Luke, and if anyone cares to comment or suggest other numbers, I'm all ears (or eyes!):

                  Total Luke: 1150

                  Unique to Luke: 550

                  Luke/Matthew only: 200

                  Luke/Mark only: 70

                  Luke/Matthew/Mark: 330

                  David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA

                  https://sites.google.com/site/inglisonmarcion/



                  From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of E Bruce Brooks
                  Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 9:35 PM
                  To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
                  Cc: GPG
                  Subject: RE: [Synoptic-L] How many verses in the Songerguts, Triple or Double Traditions, etc.

                  To: Synoptic / GPG
                  In Response To: David Inglis
                  On: Counting Verses
                  From: Bruce

                  David Inglis asks if there is a consensus on verse counts for single, double, or triple tradition verses. I should
                  suppose that the only real consensus in this area consists in the (Eusebian?) numbering of verses, and gets vaguer when
                  one goes higher up. (And even that numbering is sometimes problematic).



                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Rick Hubbard
                  Just curious David, but what is it that verses relate to? Clauses (properly identified) seem to have more potential value. Just a thought.... Regards, Rick
                  Message 8 of 20 , May 10, 2013
                    Just curious David, but what is it that "verses" relate to?

                    Clauses (properly identified) seem to have more potential value.
                    Just a thought....

                    Regards,

                    Rick

                    Sent from my iPhone

                    On May 10, 2013, at 2:10 PM, "David Inglis" <davidinglis2@...> wrote:

                    > So far, such replies as I have seen (thank you) concentrate on word counts. These will, of course, vary depending on
                    > which variants are or are not counted, and so there really is no single answer. However, for my purposes word counts are
                    > (at the moment at least) taking me down into detail I don't need, and so for now I'm concentrating just on verses. If
                    > this proves unsatisfactory, I'm going to drop down to clauses (I think). Anyway, for now these are the verse counts
                    > (round numbers) I'm using for Luke, and if anyone cares to comment or suggest other numbers, I'm all ears (or eyes!):
                    >
                    > Total Luke: 1150
                    >
                    > Unique to Luke: 550
                    >
                    > Luke/Matthew only: 200
                    >
                    > Luke/Mark only: 70
                    >
                    > Luke/Matthew/Mark: 330
                    >
                    > David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA
                    >
                    > https://sites.google.com/site/inglisonmarcion/
                    >
                    > From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of E Bruce Brooks
                    > Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 9:35 PM
                    > To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
                    > Cc: GPG
                    > Subject: RE: [Synoptic-L] How many verses in the Songerguts, Triple or Double Traditions, etc.
                    >
                    > To: Synoptic / GPG
                    > In Response To: David Inglis
                    > On: Counting Verses
                    > From: Bruce
                    >
                    > David Inglis asks if there is a consensus on verse counts for single, double, or triple tradition verses. I should
                    > suppose that the only real consensus in this area consists in the (Eusebian?) numbering of verses, and gets vaguer when
                    > one goes higher up. (And even that numbering is sometimes problematic).
                    >
                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    >
                    >


                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • David Inglis
                    Rick, verses is just a (somewhat crude) measure of the size of the different ‘sections’ of the synoptics, that I can use to calculate the average number of
                    Message 9 of 20 , May 10, 2013
                      Rick, verses is just a (somewhat crude) measure of the size of the different ‘sections’ of the synoptics, that I can use to calculate the average number of verses per variant (or variation unit) in the verses unique to Lk, and, for example, compare that number to the average for the verses common to Mt/Mk/Lk. The absolute values don’t matter here, because what I’m looking for is differences. If I find approximately the same value for all the different sections then there’s likely to be no point in drilling down to get more accurate numbers, and I’ve saved myself some time and effort. However, if there are any significant differences then I need to get more accurate numbers for the ‘size,’ and do the comparisons again (I also want to look at the number of variants per variation unit in each of the sections). Then, supposing I find a greater frequency of variation units (and/or variants per variation unit) in the verses unique to Lk than in any of the other ‘sections,’ I’ve got a phenomenon that needs an explanation, and at that point I most likely need as much detail on all the variants as I can get. However, that’s still in the future, and at the moment I’m just trying to see if such a phenomenon even exists.



                      David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA

                      Tricky NT Textual Issues <https://sites.google.com/site/inglisonmarcion/>



                      From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Rick Hubbard
                      Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 3:57 PM
                      To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] How many verses in the Songerguts, Triple or Double Traditions, etc.

                      Just curious David, but what is it that "verses" relate to?

                      Clauses (properly identified) seem to have more potential value.
                      Just a thought....

                      Regards,

                      Rick

                      Sent from my iPhone

                      On May 10, 2013, at 2:10 PM, "David Inglis" <davidinglis2@... <mailto:davidinglis2%40comcast.net> > wrote:

                      > So far, such replies as I have seen (thank you) concentrate on word counts. These will, of course, vary depending on
                      > which variants are or are not counted, and so there really is no single answer. However, for my purposes word counts are
                      > (at the moment at least) taking me down into detail I don't need, and so for now I'm concentrating just on verses. If
                      > this proves unsatisfactory, I'm going to drop down to clauses (I think). Anyway, for now these are the verse counts
                      > (round numbers) I'm using for Luke, and if anyone cares to comment or suggest other numbers, I'm all ears (or eyes!):
                      >
                      > Total Luke: 1150
                      >
                      > Unique to Luke: 550
                      >
                      > Luke/Matthew only: 200
                      >
                      > Luke/Mark only: 70
                      >
                      > Luke/Matthew/Mark: 330
                      >
                      > David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA





                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • David Mealand
                      The varying figures for words (or verses) to be allocated to different Synoptic categories are not easy to resolve. Poirier (CBR 2008, 101ff) has a good
                      Message 10 of 20 , May 12, 2013
                        The varying figures for words (or verses) to be allocated
                        to different Synoptic categories are not easy to resolve.
                        Poirier (CBR 2008, 101ff) has a good discussion of Denaux’s
                        criticisms of Bergemann on Q. Denaux himself (NovT 1995)
                        gives a list of which pericopes in Luke would satisfy B’s
                        requirement of c.70% or above agreement. The list is
                        at least one place where one can find some sort of answer
                        to which passages have very high Lk//Mt agreement, though
                        D is critical of B’s reliance only on agreement in form. Also
                        D points out that one can find very high and very low levels of
                        agreement _both_ in Lk//Mt (only) pairings, and _also_ in sayings
                        material involving Lk//Mk and Mt//Mk. Again D also rightly
                        points out that comparing Lk//Mt where Mk is present would
                        be better, and tends to yield lower levels of agreement. This
                        tends to show that the two redactors sometimes follow their
                        source(s) closely sometimes very much less closely. (Though
                        some of us think of one, and some of two sources.)

                        This is the list of high agreement pericopes
                        --------------------------------------------
                        Luke//Mt %agreement (sorted)

                        16 13 (96%/100%)
                        11 24-26 (95%),
                        3 7-9 (94%/95%),
                        13 34-35 (87%),
                        10 12-15 (83%),
                        3 16b-17 (81%),
                        7 24-28 (80%),
                        1134-35 (80%),
                        12 39-40,42b-46 (80%),
                        10 23b-24 (77%),
                        7 6c-9 (76%/91%),
                        1129-32 (76%),
                        6 41-42 (74%/80%),
                        10 21-22 (72%/78%),
                        12 22b-31 (72%),
                        11 9-13 (71%/72%),
                        6 40 (71%),
                        6 45 (69%),
                        9 57-60 (66%/73%)?,
                        (refs are to Lk, where two figures are given
                        the second is the %agreement in Mt).

                        (The list has tabs in it so there is no knowing
                        what the internet will do to its format.)

                        David M.


                        ---------
                        David Mealand, University of Edinburgh


                        --
                        The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
                        Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.