This file contains the most basic statistics on the distribution of Hebrew stress-shifted non-pausal forms and stress-shift-blocked pausal forms with respect to Tiberian orthographic accent types, based on a list of 9,328 pausally-alternating forms which was gathered for the dissertation "Topics in Tiberian Hebrew Metrical Phonology and Prosodics" by Henry Churchyard. In the charts below, taken from data in section 3.3.2.2.1 of the dissertation, words with disjunctive accents are indicated by numeral codes according to the following transcription scheme: "1" is _silluq_, "2" is _'athnah._, "3In" represents the initial accents of Cohen's d1 class (i.e. _s@gholta_ and _shalsheleth_), "3" represents the other accents of Cohen's d1 class (_zaqeph_, etc.), "4" represents the accents of Cohen's d2 class (_r@bhia`_, etc.), and "5" represents the accents of Cohen's d3 class (_pazer_, etc.). Also, "6" is the transcription for conjunctive accents. Census of all Hebrew words in the `twenty-one' books (i.e. other than Psalms, Proverb, or Job), classified according to accent type: 1 2 3In 3 4 5 | Tot.Disj. | 6 --- --- --- --- --- --- | ----- | --- Number: 18433 17047 928 61980 38659 8843 | 145890 | (82439) Percent: 12.6% 11.7% 0.6% 42.5% 26.5% 6.1% | 100% | Stress-shift-blocked pausal forms in the `twenty-one' books: 1 2 3In 3 4 5 | Tot.Disj. | 6 --- --- --- --- --- --- | ----- | --- Number: 617 603 24 624 130 17 | 2015 | (19) Percent: 30.6% 29.9% 1.2% 31.0% 6.5% 0.8% | 100% | Ratio: 2.42 2.56 1.87 0.73 0.24 0.14 | | Stress-shifted non-pausal forms with disjunctive accents in the 21 books: 1 2 3In 3 4 5 | Tot.Disj. | --- --- --- --- --- --- | ----- | Number: 1 5 1 3335 3145 807 | 7294 | Percent: 0.01% 0.07% 0.01% 45.7% 43.1% 11.1% | 100% | Ratio: 0.001 0.006 0.02 1.08 1.63 1.83 | | (There was no attempt to collect and tabulate stress-shifted non-pausal forms with conjunctive accents.) Here the numbers in the "percent" rows of these three tables indicate the fraction of all the disjunctive-accented words in a table that have accents of the category denoted by the column label. In the last two tables, the numbers in the "ratio" rows are derived from dividing the percent number in a column by the percent number in the same column in the first (census) table. So the number "1.83" in the last row of the last table was calculated as 11.1%/6.1%, or in other words as (807/7294)/(8843/145890). It is these ratios which may give the truest picture of the affinity of pausal and non-pausal forms for specific accentual categories (where a ratio larger or smaller than 1 indicates a greater or lesser degree of occurrence of pausally-alternating forms with respect to the ensemble of all Hebrew words -- pausal, non-pausal, and non-alternating -- in a particular disjunctive accentual category). In the dissertation, the result of further data-tabulation and statistical calculations is that structural characteristics of the hierarchical (nested) masoretic accentual constituency parse can better predict the distributions of pausal and non-pausal forms than can the orthographic accent classes used in the tables above. Also, neither the Biblical verse nor the lowest-level disjunctive-accent phrase seem to have fixed linguistic/prosodic significance (i.e. they do not necessarily consistently correspond to a single prosodic constituent or prosodic level of modern phonological theory). http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/