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/