Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Including Hebrew.

And Abraham says to Yhwh...

James Christian

2010/2/1 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
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>