[b-hebrew] text on the BH verb structure
davidlwashburn at gmail.com
Wed Aug 28 14:41:07 EDT 2013
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 11:20 AM, K Randolph <kwrandolph at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 10:23 PM, Nir cohen - Prof. Mat. <nir at ccet.ufrn.br
> > wrote:
>> >>> 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?
>> TAM is not a model. it is the cognitive basis of verb forms. it contains
>> competing models. if you want to reject TAM:
> In other words, TAM is undefined.
> In physics, an Amp is an Amp no matter where it’s found—whether measure in
> micro-amps on a chip, to kilo-amps for big power. It doesn’t matter whether
> we’re dealing with analog or digital, the biggest limitation to our
> accuracy is the accuracy of the instruments we use to measure amps.
> If I understand you correctly, each language has its own version of TAM,
> and the version that fits one language doesn’t fit another. Therefore, TAM
> is undefined. And an undefined term is useless.
> I confess I'm still playing catch-up on this thread, but I have to comment
here, because this is an improper comparison. In physics we're essentially
dealing with inanimate materials that follow certain definable patterns. In
language, we're dealing with the enigma of the human mind. Our thought
processes don't follow any kind of predictable patterns. Since languages
grow out of the human mind, it stands to reason that a language that
develops in a certain region will follow different patterns than one that
develops elsewhere. The first will have a TAM that fits it, and the second
will have a different TAM that fits the way it is built. This is why
mathematics is only of limited value in linguistic investigation.
Check out my Internet show: http://www.irvingszoo.com
Now available: a novel about King Josiah!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the b-hebrew