Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Randall Buth <randallbuth AT gmail.com>]

Karl
> I have never heard of the term T-A-M before, so can you explain it?
. . .
> 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?

Actually, it is a generic term that avoids complications like 'a
mixed, primarily tense' verb system, or 'a mixed, primarily aspectual
verb system' or 'a mixed, primarily modal' verb syste.
It is useful in describing the Hebrew verb because it is NEUTRAL.
Similarly to why people talk about the "suffix tense"//"prefix tense",
except that in these latter cases the word 'tense' does not
necessarily refer to time but to generically to a verb category that
marks some kind of tense-and/or-aspect-and/or-mood.
If one likes abstract notation one could talk about qatal "TAM-1" and
yiqtol "TAM-2" as the basic Hebrew verb system, with an additional
sequential vayyiqtol "seqTAM-1" and sequential ve-qatal "seqTAM-2".
These four nodes or categories and used in Hebrew to refer to the
whole referential world, not necessarily unambiguously.

Now there are some on this list who do not believe that BH had
sequential verb categories. But the communities who have been reading
the Torah once annually or triannually beg to differ. When they got
around to talking about their language, they explicitly claimed that
wayyiqtol and we-qatal were separate verbal categories. The Aramaic
targumim and Septuagint would substantially verify that claim back
over two thousand years.


> 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.

Here is why we need neutral terminology. You said 'convey tense' [I
assume that you mean 'convey time reference'] and I would say that
Hebrew also "conveys time". But it does not unambiguously mark time.
Some work from a theoretical framework that says a category cannot
convey something if it does not always convey something. But not
everyone works with such a distinction. It is also why you will hear
linguists write about languages that are 'primarily' time-based, or
primarily aspect-based, or primarily mood-based. A lot depends on how
many categories a verb system has for T-A-M. If, like BH and quite a
few languages in the world and especially in young creole languages, a
verb system only has two TAM categories, then it will likely exhibit
some blurring in the application of the categories to pure time, pure
aspect or pure mood. This has been studied in development of child
language as well. Thus, as 'aspectual' form may be used in some
temporal contexts against its aspectual grain.
You see that in BH where yiqtol and w-qatal and qotel are used in the
same clause with maHar 'tomorrow' but never wayyiqtol or qatal. And
the default value of a yiqtol in a future context is not talking about
a process of a verb but typically includes the end point of the
process.

...

This discussion is already growing long and unwieldly. The point of
using neutral terms was to not unnecessarily go into the nuts and
bolts.
For details, I suggest reading my "Short Syntax of the Hebrew Verb".
If someone wants to try out a 'no-sequential-tense' system they are
welcome to read Rolf's dissertation. As mentioned, I only ask that
anyone take the various systems out for a 'test drive' and see what
they produce.

> 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.

As I pointed out, this statement was ambiguous because some people
think that that might mean that the waw is "continuing" the
aspect/mood/time [reader take your pick] of the previous clause. I
called that the 'inductive' theory and claimed that that is NOT how
the Hebrew sequential 'tenses' work. BH, as commonly understood, has
TWO sequential tenses, each of which has its own specific 'tense'
(=TAM). Many languages in the world actually have single sequential
tenses and they do, in fact, continue the 'tense' (TAM) from the
previous clause. But Hebrew has two sequential 'tenses' and can change
in mid-stream.

Since you are not claiming that the sequential tenses are conveying
"TAM" from the previous clause, this is now a moot point and can
hopefully be dropped.

Anything else should get a different subject title.


braxot
-- 
Randall Buth, PhD
www.biblicalulpan.org
randallbuth AT gmail.com
Biblical Language Center
Learn Easily - Progress Further - Remember for Life