[b-hebrew] text on the BH verb structure

K Randolph kwrandolph at gmail.com
Mon Aug 26 23:01:05 EDT 2013


Nir:


On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 8:32 AM, Nir cohen - Prof. Mat. <nir at ccet.ufrn.br>wrote:

>  karl,
>
> >>> The adjusting of the TAM parameters is a slippery slope to
> misunderstanding. Would it not be better to add new categories to TAM where
> TAM doesn’t fit, than to reposition TAM to fit the language?
>
> well, you have the usual babel as in any other human endeavour. but the
> task is
> enormous: you want to find a model which fits all languages at all times.
> moreover,
> a model which predicts the dynamic plasticity of languages. the analogue
> in physics
> (the unified model) has proven equally unattainable for over 50 years now.
> however, this does not mean that a physicist cannot predict the orbit of a
> particular
> star or nebula. when doing so, he/she must choose the right framework and
> parameters: a simplified sub-model fit for the case in hand.
>

You want a model that fits all languages at all times. Unfortunately, TAM
is not that model. It doesn’t fit Biblical Hebrew. How many other languages
does it not fit?

However, that doesn’t mean that we can’t come to an understanding of
Biblical Hebrew grammar—we just need to codify it, then see how to fit it
in in the total picture. But by preemptively applying TAM to it, do we not
risk being inaccurate in our initial codification?

>
>
> the same occurs here: when studying a particular language, you have to
> discover the right framework and parameters, and the "simplified model"
> which makes the language click.
>

Agreed.

>
>
> to do this, however, one needs first to study the entire babel!
>
> >>> It’s my impression (correct me if I’m wrong) that part of the reason
> that there’s so much disagreement among BH scholars is because each one is
> making his own model, but using common terminology that ends up confusing
> people.
>
> i tend to agree; but clearly if there were a simple elegant solution,
> somebody would
> have pointed it out by now.
>

Would they?

Is not part of the problem that we have to decide which Hebrew to study?
Biblical grammar is not the same as Mishnaic, and how close is Mishnaic
grammar to those versions of Hebrew that followed it? How many people
recognize that there are such differences?

>
>
> nir cohen
>
>
> Yours, Karl W. Randolph.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/attachments/20130827/90af4d6b/attachment.html 


More information about the b-hebrew mailing list