[b-hebrew] text on the BH verb structure
Nir cohen - Prof. Mat.
nir at ccet.ufrn.br
Tue Aug 27 10:23:33 EDT 2013
>>> You want a modelthat 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?
TAM is not a model. it is the cognitive basis of verb forms. it contains MANY
competing models. if you want to reject TAM:
first you will have to learn all about it.
then you will have to suggest a better theory, suited for BH.
then you will discover that you have just invented another variant of TAM.
>>> However, that doesn’t mean that we can’t come to an understanding of Biblical Hebrew grammar—we just need to codify it, thensee how to fit it in in the total picture.
easier said than done. but this is basically what i did: it took me three years.
but i needed to understand TAM before rejecting part of it - the part that does
not fit the text. and replaced it by other things. but this is also
a variant of the TAM model.
>> But by preemptively applyingTAM to it, do we not risk being inaccurate in our initial codification?
of course, BH has been studied from the point of view of discourse analysis, which ignores
much of classical linguistics. but in verb form studies, most pragmatists mix the two, since discourse analysis does not see grammar as a goal.
On Tue, 27 Aug 2013 11:01:05 +0800, K Randolph wrote
> On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 8:32 AM, Nir cohen - Prof. Mat. <nir at ccet.ufrn.br> wrote:
> >>> The adjusting ofthe 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.
> 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.
Open WebMail Project (http://openwebmail.org)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the b-hebrew