The Greek Verbal Network Viewed from a Probabilistic Standpoint 23 (being around 0.65 or 0.66/0.35 or 0.34), but each was still within the range. The others were very similar in their distribution (system 2: 0.48/0.52, system 11: 0.55/0.45 and system 13: 0.54/0.46). Systems 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, and 14 were predicted to be skewed, and all of them except system 6 fell within the parameters set above for skewed distribution 81. Systems 3 and 4 (0.87/0.13 and 0.90/0.10, respectively) were more skewed than systems 8 and 12 (0.75/0.25 and 0.80/0.20). System 1 was even more skewed at 0.94/0.06, but system 14 was the most highly skewed of all at 0.97/0.03. Of the two systems that were predicted as uncertain, systems 5 and 7, system 5 was skewed, with 0.72/0.28, although not by a large margin. System 7 at 0.66/0.34 was similar in distribution to systems 9 and 10, and so should probably be considered equiprobable in distribution. In other words, virtually all of the predictions based upon Porter’s Verbal Aspect and Idioms of the Greek New Testament, formulated on the basis of analysis of morphology, implicational markedness, rudi- mentary distributional figures, and semantic features, have been shown to be correct in so far as distributional patterns over the whole of the Greek New Testament are concerned. These predictions are also supported by distributional probabilities when individual corpora within the corpus of the Greek New Testament are considered as well. In all but a few instances, the probabilities for the whole of the New Testament also apply to the sections within it. We have performed the same statistical analysis for the Synoptic Gospels and Acts, the Pauline Letters, the Johannine Writings, and the other books of the New Testament as we have for the whole of the New Testament. In only perhaps five instances does one of these corpora depart from the probabilities for the New Testament as a whole. As Appendix B indicates in system 2, ASPECT1, the probability for the whole New Testament is equiprobable that ±perfective would be selec- ted (0.48/0.52). This ratio is very similar for all of the sub-corpora exam- ined, apart from the Pauline Letters where a distribution of 0.36/0.64 is still within the range for equiprobable systems, but not as nearly equal 81 The features of system 6, CAUSALITY sub-system (CAUSALITY2), are realized by the middle and passive voices in Greek. Statistical analysis of this system is hindered by the fact that the middle and passive forms of the present, imperfect, perfect and pluperfect tense-forms are formally/morphologically ambiguous. Machine-readable texts of the New Testament differ in the manner in which they select to annotate these forms. The Friberg text has a complex classification scheme that allows for active (a), middle (m), passive (p), middle or passive (e), middle deponent (d), passive deponent (o) or middle or passive deponent (n). The GRAMCORD text in contrast classifies an ambiguous form as either middle (m) or passive (p) (though a recent revision has included both options in cases of ambiguity). Given the current state of textual annotation of the New Testament we decided to count all unambiguous middle and passive forms (aorist and future) and then add half the frequency of all ambiguous forms to each of these totals. We realize that this means of calculation may affect the results.