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

RE: [Synoptic-L] counts of word tokens

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 20 , May 9, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 20 , May 9, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 20 , May 9, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          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 4 of 20 , May 9, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            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 5 of 20 , May 10, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              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 6 of 20 , May 10, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                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 7 of 20 , May 10, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  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 8 of 20 , May 10, 2013
                  • 0 Attachment
                    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 9 of 20 , May 12, 2013
                    • 0 Attachment
                      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.