Biblical Hebrew Forum

[James Christian <jc.bhebrew AT googlemail.com>]

I'm glad that you can see that starting a sentence with 'and' is acceptable
both in English and in Hebrew. This restores my faith that you can see that
it is usage which defines the grammar and not grammar which defines the
usage. And so in light of this can you yet see that when analysing forms
(not your perception of the forms just the forms themselves) neither tense
nor aspect is uncancellable to verbs of many languages? We will always be
able to find counter examples for those that claim they are.

James Christian


2010/2/1 <dwashbur AT nyx.net>

> I have no intention of continuing this.  If you were taught that you
> "can't" start a sentence
> with "and" then you were taught wrong.  By commonly-accepted literary
> standards, it's less
> elegant stylistically, but that doesn't mean people "can't" do it.
>
> As for your comparison to the Torah, that illustrates massive linguistic
> ignorance, because
> obviously beginning a clause with a wayyiqtol was in fact standard usage
> for pre-exilic BH.
> Making such a comparison to the English you were taught in school is both
> silly and
> pointless.  I will not respond again.
>
> On 1 Feb 2010 at 21:16, James Christian wrote:
>
> >
> > And while we're on the subject David I was taught at primary school
> > that you can't start a
> > sentence with and. The first sentence in this email and the ease
> > with which you understood it,
> > pyscholinguistically speaking, show that this is quite clearly
> > wrong. If there existed such
> > misguided teachers in the day of Moses then just about every
> > sentence in the Torah would have
> > to be rewritten being 'bad' grammar. Also, I don't know if you ever
> > heard of that famous paper.
> > The one that lists hundreds of high profile English authors who ALL
> > start sentences with 'and'. I
> > would challenge any supporter of such an absurd position to hole a
> > conversation for any
> > considerable length of time without starting a sentence with 'and'.
> > I hope this may illustrate to
> > the difference between 'standard' English grammar and actual natural
> > English grammar.
> > James Christian
> >
> > 2010/2/1 James Christian <jc.bhebrew AT googlemail.com>
> >     Hi,
> >
> >     2010/2/1 <dwashbur AT nyx.net>
> >     Karl already answered most of this, so I'll just add a comment
> > or two:
> >
> >     On 1 Feb 2010 at 10:03, James Christian wrote:
> >
> >     >
> >     > Hi Dave, so let's take a look at the 'present tense'.
> >     > (1) He knows Sally
> >     > (2) John works at the factory
> >     > This expresses both past, present and future.
> >
> >     Wrong. Both express present and say nothing about past or
> > future. You're doing classic
> >     eisegesis there.
> > No I'm not. As I mentioned to Karl a simple modification of sentence
> > (2) shows the sense I
> > meant:
> > (2b) John works at the factory every day
> > which has a different meaning from
> > (2c) John is working at the factory
> > If you can't see that 2b includes temporal references that 2c
> > doesn't then I don't know what
> > further I can do to show you.
> >     > (3) And so after he went into the bar he goes up to the barman
> > and
> >     > orders a pint
> >     > These express actions in the past.
> >
> > And it's faulty English grammar. Aberrations cannot be used to
> > determine normative usage.
> > I'd say "nice try," but really it's not.
> >
> > It's faulty English according to who? According to a minority of
> > English speakers who attempt
> > (often failingly) to adhere to some form of 'standard' English? Or
> > to the billions of native English
> > speakers who say things like this all the time, it being an accepted
> > part of the natural grammar
> > they carry in their heads? This is a well known use of English
> > present simple. Do even a basic
> > TEFL course and these elementary concepts will be introduced to you.
> >
> > I have to say I am quite shocked seeing this reaction from you. I
> > really didn't expect it. I've seen
> > you in the past defending the fundamental principle of language that
> > usage defines the
> > meanings of words and thought that to someone who accepts such a
> > position would also plainly
> > see the futility in trying to command a living language not to
> > evolve or to conform to its natural
> > usage but to be constrained to some ideal of a 'standard' which only
> > a minority (failingly) attempt
> > to use.
> >     > (4) And so when you come to me you can check.
> >     > This expresses something that will happen in the future
> >
> > Once again we are looking at subjunctives in both clauses. I'm not
> > sure what part of that
> > idea is beyond your grasp.
> >
> > Which part of 'it doesn't matter what you call them' is beyond your
> > grasp? For the intents and
> > purposes of a naive analysis with no informants (as we are
> > attempting to do with Hebrew) the
> > verb form is exactly the same. The fact that you analyse these (as
> > an informant) differently only
> > goes to show that more than one function can map onto the same form.
> > If you stand back and
> > look at the greater picture for a moment you might just realise that
> > we are actually saying exactly
> > the same thing.
> >
> >     > Conclusion. No fixed tense is grammaticalised and
> > uncancellable to
> >     > the 'present simple' verb
> >     > form. Are we to conclude that these are homonyms as well
> > David? How
> >     > many examples will it
> >     > take to show that tense is not uncancellable to any verb form
> > in
> >     > English you could possibly
> >     > chose?
> >
> >     No, they're not homonyms, and this pale attempt at reductio ad
> > absurdum falls on its face.
> >     How many examples? A few legitimate ones might suffice, but so
> > far I haven't seen any.
> >     What I have seen is a pitifully inadequate understanding of
> > English grammar, coupled with
> >     massive reading-in of preconceived ideas.
> >
> >     This is a waste of my time. I will not respond to this butchery
> > of English grammar again.
> >
> > All of the examples are legitimate David. They are natural language.
> > Examine any corpus of
> > spoken English large enough and you will see it for yourself. We
> > could claim that every native
> > speaker of English speaks 'bad English' but this is, linguistically
> > speaking, the very definition of
> > naive. (for many examples of the historic use of the present simple
> > just turn on any stand up
> > comedian and you will hear lot's of them)
> > Similar phenomenon can be seen in many languages. Let's take Italian
> > for example. In 'correct'
> > Italian when formally addressing a crowd of people you don't know
> > very well you're supposed to
> > address them as 'Loro' (they). Try doing this in real life and you
> > are only likely to do one of two
> > things. Either make them think you really are talking about 'they'
> > and not addressing the crowd or
> > causing outbreaks of hilarious laughter when they realise you are
> > talking some kind of archaic
> > Marco Polo style version of Italian. Natural languages do NOT obey
> > text book grammars. Their
> > grammar is defined by their usage. Much to the dissatisfaction of
> > primary school teachers and to
> > the minority who took it in good faith that they actually know what
> > they are talking about.
> > James Christian
> >
> >     Dave Washburn
> >
> >     http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
> >     _______________________________________________
> >     b-hebrew mailing list
> >     b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> >     http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> Dave Washburn
>
> http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>