Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Dave Washburn <davidlwashburn AT gmail.com>]

On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 11:20 AM, K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com> wrote:

Nir:

On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 10:23 PM, Nir cohen - Prof. Mat. <nir AT ccet.ufrn.br> wrote:

karl,

>>> You want a model that fits all languages at all times. Unfortunately, TAM is
not that model. It doesn’t fit Biblical Hebrew. How many other languages does it not fit?

TAM is not a model. it is the cognitive basis of verb forms. it contains MANY
competing models. if you want to reject TAM:

In other words, TAM is undefined.

In physics, an Amp is an Amp no matter where it’s found—whether measure in micro-amps on a chip, to kilo-amps for big power. It doesn’t matter whether we’re dealing with analog or digital, the biggest limitation to our accuracy is the accuracy of the instruments we use to measure amps.

If I understand you correctly, each language has its own version of TAM, and the version that fits one language doesn’t fit another. Therefore, TAM is undefined. And an undefined term is useless.

I confess I'm still playing catch-up on this thread, but I have to comment here, because this is an improper comparison. In physics we're essentially dealing with inanimate materials that follow certain definable patterns. In language, we're dealing with the enigma of the human mind. Our thought processes don't follow any kind of predictable patterns. Since languages grow out of the human mind, it stands to reason that a language that develops in a certain region will follow different patterns than one that develops elsewhere. The first will have a TAM that fits it, and the second will have a different TAM that fits the way it is built. This is why mathematics is only of limited value in linguistic investigation.
 

--
Dave Washburn

Check out my Internet show: http://www.irvingszoo.com

Now available: a novel about King Josiah!