Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu>]

Rule number one: The less we define the better off we are.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Apr 22, 2009, at 10:00 AM, Rolf Furuli wrote:

> Dear Stoney,
>
> When we discuss linguistic issues, we may define
> our concepts differently. And that need not be a
> problem as long as the other part clearly
> understand our definition. So, you are free to
> define tense as you have done below. Another
> question is whether the definition is precise
> enough to give good results in the study of
> languages. To borrow a viewpoint from the natural
> sciences: If a hypothesis is so general that it
> can explain everything, it explains nothing. A
> scientific hypothesis should be falsifiable, that
> is, it should be possible to think of situations
> which, if they occurred, would prove the
> hypothesis to be wrong. And similarly in
> linguistics; if definitions are so subjective or
> general that there are no controls to use in
> order to distinguish between what falls inside
> and outside the definition, such definitions are
> not helpful in linguistic research. I am afraid
> your definition belongs to this group.
>
> My definition, on the other hand, can be used to
> falsify, and as far as dead languages are
> concerned, it can be used to find whether there
> are particular verb forms that uniformly express
> a particular time reference. Based on my
> definition, the test is very simple. Applied to
> WAYYIQTOL it goes like this: If WAYYIQTOL
> represents past tense, we will expect that it
> always has past reference, except in situations
> which linguistically can be explained as special
> cases (such as hypothetical conditional clauses
> etc). If we find a reasonable number of
> WAYYIQTOLs with non-past reference, the
> hypothesis that WAYYIQTOL represents past tense
> is falsified. Can you apply your definition of
> tense in a similar way to Hebrew and get
> linguistic results? In that case, please explain
> how.
>
> I suggest that you read the book "Tense" (1986)
> B. Comrie. There you will find a definition
> similar to mine.
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Rolf Furuli
> University of Oslo
>
>
>
> > Rolf :
> >
> > 'It is important to distinguish between tense and time/temporal  
> > reference.
> > All languages have different means to signal whether an action is  
> > past,
> > present, or future. But first when the temporal reference is an  
> > intrinsic
> > part of a verb form,  can we say that a language has tense.  
> > Therefore, tense
> > is defined as "grammaticalized location in time".'
> >
> > This seems to be unnecessarily restrictive. Isn't simpler and more
> > productive to treat 'tense' as a component of the utterance, a  
> > component
> > which may be realized either grammatically or lexically — or,  
> > redundantly,
> > both — or even (as often in English, and I am beginning to suspect in
> > Hebrew) left unmarked?
> >
> >
> > Stoney Breyer
> > Writer*
> > Touchwood Creative | www.touchwoodcreative.com
> > 3200 Locust Street, St. Louis, MO. 63103
> > tel: 314-421-9878 x103 | fax: 314-421-6276
> > stoneyb AT touchwoodcreative.com
> > *ein Mann ... dem das Schreiben schwerer fällt als allen anderen  
> > Leuten.
> > -Thomas Mann
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew