Biblical Hebrew Forum

[David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>]

Gday Randall,

You know, I'm actually quite partial to such an approach as you outline 
below. It is quite compatible with semantic mapping methodology as 
utilised in typology. At the end of the day, our attempt is to describe 
the functions of the verbal system and how the different forms carved up 
the applicable TAM "semantic space" (to use Croft's term).

Regards,
David Kummerow.


> vayyixtov David
>  >Some shift has indeed occurred, whether this be
>  >seen as aspect-prominent with some move to tense (as per Cook), or
>  >tense-prominent with not a complete move to tense (as I see).
>
> Or, as I see, making a statement
> likely to be misinterpreted etymologically
> by students and even scholars.
>
> In a language with fully grammaticalized, multi-person subject
> concord, but with only two TAM categories for a three-dimensional
> reality, (predicting at least six opposition items), Saussure thru
> Bickerton would predict that the two category system would be used
> for all three TAM parameters, no matter what the etymology.
>
> The problem with labels like 'aspect-prominent' and 'tense-prominent',
> useful when they not able to be misapplied by actual speakers,
> is that people reading dead languages tend to think etymologically
> and say non-functional things like 'but it is "really" only marking
> --X--, (X being the item they call "prominent"). That is an example
> of the etymological fallacy, that is, that a verb means
> whatever it meant in an earlier system. And if that earlier system
> was likewise under-differentiated, then it too would likely
> be misrepresented, something I see with Bauer's non-system
> system from 1910 (if memory serves).
>
> Randall Buth