Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Randall Buth <randallbuth AT gmail.com>]

>>* I like the flexibility in Andrason’s approach and his synchronic starting
*>>* point
*>>* is a breath of fresh air. Cognitive Linguistics has room in its theory 
for
*>>* things in language that defy overly simplistic labels. The Hebrew verb is
*>>* one of
*>>* these things. Some background comments of my own: as many scholars, maybe
*>>* most,
*>>* are at least intuitively aware, the Hebrew verb fuses the parameters of
*>>* Tense/Aspect/Mood/Textual relationship [i.e. TAM + the ‘sequential’ 
system]
*>>* into
*>>* the four and one-half categories of the indicative Hebrew verb. (qatal,
*>>* yiqtol,
*>>* wayyiqtol, and we-qatal are four, qotel is the 'nominal' that was added 
to
*>>* the
*>>* verbal system, making five.) Despite that, many studies spend a lot of 
ink
*>>* trying to fit one label on a Hebrew verb category, Tense or Aspect or 
Mood.
*>>* As
*>>* is mentioned in our chapter “The Hebrew Verb: A Short Syntax” in Selected
*>>* Readings (Biblical Language Center, 2006), such ‘single label’ attempts
*>* ultimately fail
*

> If everything explains the grammaticalizations, then nothing explains them.

This comment doesn't seem to grasp either the restraint of
the number of "slices-of-pie" in describing verb-system parameters
or Cognitive Linguistics.
.

>>* … in a similar way that particle or wave interpretations of light
*>>* fail by themselves. Light can be a particle ‘when it needs to be’ and it
*>>* can be
*>>* a wave ‘when it needs to be’. In fact, it is simultaneously/potentially
*>>* both.
*>>* (Physicists are still sorting that out, though String Theory went a step 
in
*>>* that
*>>* direction.)
*

> This is typical philosophers’ misunderstandings of physics. My grandfather,
> who was a physics professor, and other scientists told me that all of this
> is mere mathematical modeling. They don’t tell what is the nature of light,
> rather how light acts in certain circumstances. The nature of light is still
> unknown.

Since you said this before, and since my comment was not a misunderstanding,
I will bother to respond:
the particle/wave comment is an analogy and not a physics lesson about
ultimate reality. I am very much aware of the mathematical nature of
descriptions of electromagnetic radiation and the uncertainty principle.

But I wouldn't call physics "mere" mathematical modeling. It is a profound
language.
The math is what generates and controls the "simultaneously/potentially"
comment. I don't see that you tried to
interpret the statements by their intent or context, but apparently, just
wanted to say something negative about the particle/wave analogy. Thank you.

>>* … The Hebrew yiqtol conjugation can be a Tense and an Aspect and a
*>>* Mood as the situation demands.
*
>
> In other words, the contexts and not the grammaticalizations define which of
> the TAM+sequential we understand for each usage.

This hasn't quite grasped it.
The contexts  AND the 'grammaticalizations' define the usage.

> Therefore,
...

The grammaticalizations are a quantumization of the
TAM of the contextual/semantic space.


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