Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Nir:

On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Nir cohen - Prof. Mat. <nir AT ccet.ufrn.br> wrote:

dear colleagues,

i would like to respond to some of the remarks made here, especially by rolf
and karl, concerning tense and time.

------------------

PART I: GENERALITIES on tams and models

linguistics is an empirical field. it is difficult to say
if it is a science or not.

As long as linguistics limits itself to being an empirical study, it can be a science.

It’s when linguists try to go beyond empirical studies that it appears to me that they leave science behind. Is TAM the linguistic equivalent to the physics’ “unified theory”?

 

… indeed,
two individuals spaking the same mother tongue are expected to use similar
sentences; however, each person has a speaking style, and so linguistics can
at best hope at an approximation of "common talk".

but even physics, as an empirical science, has its problems. karl is wrong if
he believes that physics consists of a single model. see the quest for the
so-called "unified theory".
not even every physical prediction is unanimous. time and distance of the same
object, in relativity theory, are measured differently by different observers.
physics also has many unanswered questions, like black matter, black energy,
etc etc. physics is capable to verify its predictions only up to a certain
precision.

The questions go deeper that listed above. I’m reminded of Tesla’s rejection of Einstein’s general relativity because it predicted different results than what Tesla was observing in the lab. I expect that limits on human understanding will prevent a “unified theory”. 

------------------

why TAM is not a single model, asks karl.

the point of view of most linguistic works, including those inclined towards
theory, is the practical one: constructing a simple model, based on a small
number of parameters, for
imitating the bulk of speech, i.e. "standard use". there is no hope to
describe all the deviations utterable by all the individuals. thus, at best we
have an approximation of reality.

That’s not the question. The question is definitions—just what do the terms mean so that we can arrive at “an approximation of "common talk".” as you call it above?

this point of practicality results in terms being used by different
researchers in slightly different ways. of course,
karl, we could have incorporated them all into a single notational
monster system, which would require constant updating. then it would fit your
criterion for a "good basis for debate", but would be worthless for every
practical purpose.

It looks as if you completely missed the boat in the above paragraph. I’m not looking for a unified theory, all I look for is consistent application of individual parts.

…

fitting the same model to all languages is
like fitting the same shoe to all feet. even if you extend your definition of
shoe with as many parameters as you wish, it will never fit all feet.

That’s exactly my criticism of TAM as I presently understand it. 

The existence of different TAM approaches has two sources:
variation between the languages, dialects, genres studied,
and variation between the different scholars' perception of them.
this creates a certain pluralism, which is acceptable and even
necessary, given the complexity of the subject. hopefully, one day in the
future we will have a single model.

???? 

------------------------

PART II, BH TEMPORALITY

…

My understanding is that much of this discussion depends on how one uses the words in the above section. 

----------------------------------

PART III: BH TENSE

are the BH verb forms TENSES? here we need to flexibilize our definitions not
only of time, but also of tense.

That’s exactly the problem! If everyone uses his own definition, how do we arrive at “an approximation of "common talk".”?

in BH, the preterite is a combination of qatal+wayiqtol, jointly but not
separately.

the future indicative is yiqtol+weqatal, jointly but not separately.

the subjunctive, ditto.

???? 

the repeated event, ditto.

the volitive, ditto. LK W)MRT

in all of them, the waw-prefixed form is used as sequel, UNLESS SYNTAX
INTERVENES, and the wawless forms are used for non-sequel
(initial, parallel, remote past and future, syndetic), with the same caveat.

nir cohen

Karl W. Randolph.