Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Nir:

On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Nir cohen - Prof. Mat. <nir AT ccet.ufrn.br> wrote:

karl,

>>> The question I raise, is there a common terminology, even a common
understanding of the same terms, so that communication can occur? If not, then
confusion reigns.

of course there exists a common understanding of terms. for example,
each of the known classifications of eventualities (vendler, comrie,
smith, and many subsequent writers) uses a slightly different division, but
essentially you
can translate easily one division system into the other. actually, there
exist quite a few survey papers in the literature doing just that, which
i had come across. unfortunately, i do not have the details at hand. maybe other
b-listees can help. or you can search the internet, just like i did.
a good point to start is just to google these names, and "eventuality".
you may also google "state, event, achievement, accumulation, semelfactive"
etc etc, as so brilliantly described by our constant joker.

Then you deny that “ we need to flexibilize our definitions not only of time, but also of tense”? And “TAM is not a model. it is the cognitive basis of verb forms. it contains MANY competing models.”?

If there’s a consistency of terminology as you assert above, then there is a consistency for TAM. The only differences are how different languages fit within the TAM model, if they fit at all.

similar is dependency grammar. some say the clause head is the verb, some say
it is the subject. so, there are basically two big schools of how to disect a
clause. both are useful.

… 

tense and aspect are especially complex concepts, and each of them is
described by many SLIGHTLY different models. rather than reject them all, you
might study them all and then recognize that each of them helps us understand
what tense is and what aspect is.

Now you seem to contradict what you asserted in your top paragraph.

I don’t reject TAM as a tool for understanding languages. What I say is that it’s too limited. It doesn’t explain the patterns observed in Biblical Hebrew.

A prime example is Proverbs 31:10–31—with the exception of the first Yiqtol, all the other verbs in that section are in the context of present tense, imperfective aspect, indicative modality. Yet there is a regular pattern that explains the use of the Qatal and Yiqtol verb conjugations, a pattern that isn’t described by TAM.

When we take the pattern as evidenced by this Proverbs passage, and apply it to most of the Yiqtols (and Wayiqtols) found in narrative, we find it fits without resorting to tense. Tense is told not by the conjugation, but by the context. 

of course there is communication in the linguistics literature. this does not
mean that they all agree all the time.


nir cohen

Karl W. Randolph.