Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Rolf" <rolf.furuli AT sf-nett.no>]

Dear Timmo,

In all kinds of scientific research we need clear definitions and we need 
controls. If it is true that "a form represents tense only in certain aspects 
or aspect only in certain temporal references," we have linguistic anarchy. 
Then we need another definition of tense than "grammaticalization of location 
in time." And further, there are no controls, because we cannot test the 
interpretation of the scholar on the basis of clear definitions. So, in that 
case, everything goes.

It is true that language cannot be treated the same way that we treat 
mathematics. But still there are clear patterns. Your words about "not 100%" 
relates to two different situations, 1) normal use, and 2) special 
situations.  For example, the English forms "bought" and "walked" represent 
past tense. But under special circumstances, the forms may appear to some not 
to refer to the past, although, even in hypothetical situations one can argue 
in favor of past reference, if the deictic center is taken into account.

Challenge 1: Can you find a normal non-hypothetical English clause where 
"bought" or "walked" do not represent past tense?

 The default reference of the Greek aorist is past.  But aorist can have 
present and future reference as well. Therefore I claim that Greek aorist 
does not represent past tense, only the perfective aspect. But my claim is 
that the Greek imperfect represent past tense and the imperfective aspect.

Challenge 2: Can you give one or more examples of Greek imperfect with 
non-past reference?



Best regards,


Rolf Furuli


Søndag 1. September 2013 08:01 CEST skrev 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).
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew