Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Kimmo Huovila <kimmo.huovila AT kolumbus.fi>]

On Sat, 31 Aug 2013 19:52:42 -0700
K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com> wrote:

> Kimmo:
> 
> On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Kimmo Huovila
> <kimmo.huovila AT kolumbus.fi>wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, 31 Aug 2013 18:43:05 +0200
> > "Rolf" <rolf.furuli AT sf-nett.no> wrote:
> >
> > …
> > > If tense is defined as "grammaticalized location in time (Comrie)," I
> > have problems with your statement: "traditional past tense (as a
> > grammatical category) does not correspond exactly to the semantic past
> > tense." If we accepts Comrie's definition, "semantic past tense" should
> > have have read "semantic past reference. We cannot have two different 
> > kinds
> > of "past tense." This is not nitpicking, but highly significant in a
> > discussion of tense and aspect.
> >
> > To me the difference seems purely terminological. I am fine with your
> > "semantic past reference". My point is that we should not expect 100 %
> > correspondence between past reference and a past tense grammatical form
> > even in tense languages.
> >
> 
> That isn’t the question here, rather does “T” in TAM have an intrinsically
> time referent definition? Or is “tense” arbitrarily applied to verbal forms
> irrespective of whether or not they have a time reference? Or is it that in
> one language “tense” has a time reference, and in another it doesn’t?

The "T" has time reference, but I would not expect the verbal form to 
correspond 100 % to time. Östen Dahl in his Tense and Aspect Systems notes 
that tense and aspect are often intertwined. Maybe a form represents tense 
only in certain aspects or aspect only in certain temporal references. And 
let's not forget mood. In other words, a form may code for some specific 
constellations of TMA categories excluding some other constellations.

> 
> If I understand Nir correctly, it appears that the last of the three
> sentences in the paragraph above fits the use of “tense”, to which I reply,
> how can we communicate if we don’t have a common vocabulary?

Nir will have to evaluate whether you understand him correctly, but I think 
in general that a recognition of the lack of 100 % correspondence between 
temporal reference and tense forms helps understanding. I think sometimes 
communication breaks down when one side expects there to be 100 % 
correspondence and the other does not. Thus what for one is not tense, is 
tense to another.

> 
> >
> > > For example, are the WAYYIQTOLs in narrative YIQTOLs with past
> > reference, or do they have an intrinsic  past tense, or do they represent
> > the perfective aspect?
> >
> > My point is that we need not expect all of them to have past reference or
> > all of them to describe a perfective situation to say that TMA is relevant
> > for the analysis of the meaning of the form.
> >
> 
> My question is, how can TAM be used in the analysis of a language if, in
> the words of Nir, it “contains MANY competing models”? To me this sounds as
> if in one language “tense” refers to a temporal reference, and in another
> an atemporal reference? And that’s just one of the letters in TAM?

Is it possible that he meant (he will have to speak for himself) that a tense 
form may be used in different ways in different languages? In some languages, 
the correspondence to temporal reference is greater than in others. Tense 
form may code for something non-temporal (like English counterfactuals).

Kimmo Huovila