Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Interesting, this historic use of present verb forms is not particular to
English. Just about every European language does this. I wouldn't be
surprised if every language in the world did it.

James Christian

2010/2/1 James Christian <jc.bhebrew AT googlemail.com>

> Example from a typical stand up comedian:
>
> So I'm walking down the street and I see this guy walk into a bar. That
> must have hurt!
>
> Now we can be pedantic and claim that all stand up comedians speak 'bad'
> English (that none us seem to have problems understanding) or we can accept
> that present tense is not uncancellable to the verb form we use as the
> 'present simple'.
>
> James Christian
>
> 2010/2/1 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
>>>
>>
>>
>