Quantifying the texts that we are to examine into units that are defined as semogenic thus
allows us to be more specific as to how much meaning is contained within a given pas-
sage of text. Units of calculation that are based on such a rationale could in turn serve to
give a greater degree of accuracy when attempting to indicate exactly how much differ-
ence in meaning there is between two parallel documents that vary in relation to each
other in small textual details.
An example can be constructed as follows. Let us assume that the form w)wbb exists in
one manuscript, and is paralleled in another manuscript of the same text by the form
M)ybhl*. If we count the forms in parallel attestation using a ‘word’ as our unit of calcu-
lation, we would have two word units (one in each manuscript) that showed one type of
variation.^98 Alternatively, were we to quantify our texts using a system of semogenic de-
limitation, we would count six units (three in each manuscript) that showed three types of
variation: a prepositional interchange between b and l that counts as SV(1), one OV(l)
variation between qal and hiph‘il conjugations of the verb √)wb, and the variation of a
3ms and a 3mpl pronominal suffix that would be counted as SV(1). Such an understand-
ing of this textual variant gives us a more nuanced perspective of exactly how much dif-
ference in meaning there is between these two hypothetical manuscripts.
It may be suggested that it would be preferable to quantify our texts by delineating units
based on morphology, rather than to deal with terminology that includes abstract units of
(^98) This would be in consideration of Rule 3 as set out above.