Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Dear Randall:

On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 12:05 AM, Randall Buth <randallbuth AT gmail.com>wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 9:23 PM, K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I have never heard of the term T-A-M before, so can you explain it?
>
> It is linguistic notation for "tense-aspect-mood" and often used in
> comparative discussions where languages have divergent or blurred TAM
> systems. It recognizes that languages often have forms and categories
> in the verb system where tense-aspect-mood parameters cannot be easily
> or neatly separated in the morphology. And it allows for neutral
> discussion of systems where the parameters may be difficult to define,
> or may differ with different theoretical assumptions/definitions.
>

What follows is my trying to understand what you wrote.

In other words, this is a tool used in linguistic analysis for comparative
linguistics, to see how verbal usage in different languages differ, and as a
tool to help with translation? How does this work when we limit the
discussion internal to Biblical Hebrew itself?

>
> > As far as Judges 13:3, the waws indicate a continuation of the narration,
> > just as I indicated.
>
>
> So you claim that extra words mean that the narration is continuing.
> (And by narration you are including the quoted speech, here, which is
> fine.)
> My responses had assumed more than tautology in your response,
> especially since one of the common 'explanations' ('first [and second]
> year lies') is that the T-A-M system of Hebrew is continued by
> induction with the sequential verb structures. Which is not how Hebrew
> works. Not only does that 'inducted TAM' not fit the data, as
> mentioned, but it doesn't explain why Hebrew would have two sequential
> structures for a single process of induction. The two structures carry
> different TAM. Perhaps we're agreed on this.
>
> In trying to understand your response, I found the following site:

http://www.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryOfLinguisticTerms/contents.htm

Tense—I think we agree that Biblical Hebrew verbal morphology does not
convey tense. At least that’s how I also understand the research mentioned
that led to Dr. Furuli’s dissertation.

Aspect—as I understand the above site’s explanation, is a subset of tense,
hence irrelevant to Biblical Hebrew.

Mood—?? I don’t understand the above site’s explanation. All I can say for
certain is that it does not appear to be the same as when I use the term
“mood”.

How does this relate to the question?

As I understand the original question, it was on how to explain the
waw-conversive. My response was that there is enough disagreement among
scholars and among members of this group that the only thing to say for
certain is that the waw indicates a continuation. In other words, I made a
statement that shows the limits to what we as a group agree on.

Karl W. Randolph.