cally ‘packaged’ with nouns to comprise one semogenic ‘packet.’ For example, the plural
noun Mysws would be read as containing one semogenic part: ‘horses,’ rather than two
semogenic parts: ‘horse’ + ‘plurality.’ Likewise, the feminine noun hsws would be read
as one semogenic unit comprising ‘horse’ + ‘feminine gender.’
We conclude, then, that using basic morphology to quantify our texts is inadequate. It
would also seem from the previous discussion that semantic quantification is problematic.
We will therefore try to seek some middle ground between morphological and semantic
content in order to define our main unit of calculation in the present analysis. Our system
will be based primarily on morphological quantification as these units are represented
unambiguously in the written lexicogrammar. However, we will exclude the counting of
some morphemes where statistical inconsistencies would result and where particular
morphemes are considered to be semantically bound to others.
It remains only to decide upon some terminology that will sufficiently describe the unit of
calculation that fits our requirements in the present context. In the absence of an appro-
priate extant term, at least as far as I can determine,^ we will use the term ‘semogenic
unit,’ abbreviated to SU, when referring to the quanta.^105
(^105) That an appropriate label is lacking from current scholarship is typified in B.K. Waltke and M. O'Con-
nor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990) 63, where grammatical
units are given in ascending order as the phoneme, morpheme, word, clause and sentence. In this taxonomy
semogenic units would stand between morphemes and words.