Scorndog wrote:Gaddianton, Bertrand would have been dismayed by your vacuous treatment of the issue.
Hello there Waterdog, I mean, Scorndog. Without Symmachus's professional weigh-in, my guess on a multiple choice test would be something along the lines of sheer accident, which seems to me about what he's arguing. Really, we're in Bible Code/Intelligent Design country right now.
The ways a Bible fanatic creatively adapts scripture to new ends should go well beyond copying syntax precisely. The poetry and feel of words as they're spoken with fundamentalistic exaggeration surely can be transmitted to new ends with grammatical investment overlooked. The problem is that my offering is subject to the very same criticism of a single example, and method that could take a few liberties, and as-is, almost certainly an accident. But I doubt it's worse than the typical fare of apologetic complexity arguments all of which are infested with this same problem.
By the way, as I wrote the paragraph above I kid you not, but my vision blurred and my skin crawled and it took a moment for my brain to sort out the fact that while my eyes were glued to the screen, a giant spider was lowering itself from the ceiling within an inch of my glasses. What are the odds? Especially while engaged in a conversation about odds. Now, if every time I argued with an apologist about complexity, a spider lowered itself in front of my glasses, I'd go through a real crisis.
Kishcumen, your praise of empty argumentation is what the apologist is often criticized for.
hmmm.....
hmmmmmmm.....
For the Alf response, it's interesting that the Late War also controlled for KJV n-grams. But that didn't seem to strengthen its position for any of the apologists. Why would you compare professional translators to a backyard hick anyway? What would be more interesting is if hicks in the 1700s made similar mistakes to Smith.
Your Symmachus reaction overall has been really interesting. The sheer conviction with which the apologists are taking this weird study done by a single individual to the ends of the internet blows my mind. As I understand it, he worked in a complete vacuum with no peer oversight and these were his terms. What kind of scrutiny has it undergone since its publication?
I understand Peterson unveiling the study to the rubes who read the Deseret News. I even understand pulling the study out as a weapon of last resort against a guy like Jenson, because it's so far outside his world, how can he possibly have an answer to it? But gosh, here Symmachus has been revealing his hand with just how much he knows about words and crap, and I think we're all a little bit scared of him now. If I were an apologist, I think the last thing I'd do is walk up to Symmachus and call him out -- "hey buddy, you think you know so much about words, how about you explain this case of but if? Huh? Not so smart now, are ya?"
What is fascinating about this episode that I will in the future refer to as "the confrontation of Symmachus" is that it is strong evidence in favor of apologists believing their arguments. There is very little way to explain your abrupt challenge to the young scholar other than you really thought you had him owned.