Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Dear Nir,

Because you are a matematician, I  would like to bring Karl Popper ("The 
Logic of Scientific Discovery") into this discussion. Popper states that a 
scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable, which means that it must point to 
some data, that, if they are found, the hypothesis is shown to be wrong. A 
hypothesis which explains everything, explains nothing.

Languages are more fluid than physical data. Nevertheless, when we are 
describing particular characteristics of a language, the parameters or 
definitions we use must be so clear that these characteristics can be clearly 
distinguished. If one definition is so vague or general that everything can 
be subsumed under it, that definition is meaningless. This is the case with 
your definition 2.

My definition (definition 1), which is the same as Comrie's definition, 
predicts that if a language has tenses, one verb form uniformly has past 
reference, except in special cases that can be explained as special cases, 
and one form uniformly has future reference, except in special cases that can 
be explained as special cases. Therefore, this definition meets Poppers 
requirement. It predicts that in a language with tenses, there is a uniform 
temporal use of verb forms. If we form the hypothesis that a particular verb 
form represents past tense, and we find a reasonable number of of this form 
with non-past reference, our hypothesis is falsified. This means that the 
language is not a tense language, and the high number of examples of the form 
with past reference, must be explained conversational pragmatic implicature 
(=the context is the reason for the past reference).

Everything can be subsumed under your definition, and therefore it explains 
nothing. First, tense is negatively defined, as everything that is not aspect 
or mood. Second, "temporal relations" is a vague term, because most clauses 
in a text directly or indirectly is put into a time frame. Even aspect 
expresses temporal relations. Third, the word "grammaticalized" seems to be 
used in a way that contradicts the way linguists use the term. Actually what 
is "grammaticalized use which expresses temporal relations"? When I use the 
definition "grammaticalized location in time," this is a restrictive term. It 
means that a particular form with a particular morhology has an intrinsic 
past or future tense. In other words, the past or future reference is not 
caused by the context (=conversational pragmatic implicature), but by the 
form itself (=semantic meaning). Your definition does not distinguish between 
temporal relationships, and therefore it is meaningless.

Because you accept that Hebrew is not a tense language, if my definition is 
used, you need not do much work with an analysis of Jeremiah 50 and 51. 
However, a short time ago, there was a discussion of the meaning of the 
Hebrew verb forms, where some list members expressed the view that Hebrew is 
a tense language. I challenge these list-members to account for the temporal 
references of the verbs of the mentioned chapters.




Rolf Furuli
Stavern
Norway

 
 
Fredag 6. September 2013 05:51 CEST skrev "Nir cohen - Prof. Mat." 
<nir AT ccet.ufrn.br>: 
 
> dear rolf,
> 
> you are raising an important point: we indeed start from two different 
> notions
> of tense.
> 
> definition 1 (yours): tense as a grammaticalized verb format which specifies
> EXCLUSIVELY absolute past, or present, or future.
> 
> definition 2: (mine) tense as that part of verb semantics which is neither
> aspect nor mood. namely, ANY grammaticalized use which expresses temporal
> relations.
> 
> i admit i used the second, not the first, definition as my point of origin. 
> in doing so i was following (so i thought) joosten 2002 or cook 2006, where
> exactly tense is discucced as an option to aspect in BH. maybe this use
> is not standard - i am not a professional linguist. but then my question is:
> how do you describe definition 2, if not by "tense"?
> 
> -------------
> 
> definition 1 is much narrower than definition 2. an important ingredient of 
> it
> is OBLIGATORIETY. namely, it requires (as you indeed mention) that EVERY use
> of the verb form should be consistent with its UNIQUE temporal orientation.
> 
> actually, the word EVERY is perhaps too strong. contrary to your 
> claims, even the english past and future tenses can be used 
> out of their temporal orientation, e.g.:
> 
> 1) VOLITIVES:  "I wish  you WALKED faster" "I wish they COULD see us now". 
> 2) RELATIVE PAST:  "If you break the vase I'll tell dad it WAS you".
> 3) CONDITIONALS:   "Even if you RAN you would miss the train".
> 4) DECLARATIVES:   "I WILL not stop now".
> 
> nevertheless, i tend to agree with you that, by and large, english past and
> future are tenses according to definition 1.
> 
> whereas definition 2 does not require obligatoriety. 
> 
> perhaps the use of the english present tense for habituals is of this type:
> (almost) 
> EVERY habitual is in present tense; not every verb in present tense is a
> habitual. for me, based on definition 2, this is a tense, and a
> grammaticalization.
> 
> ----------------------
> 
> now, the issue is BH. here, if we take the first, more 
> restricted definition of tense, as basis of discussion 
> then we get nowhere: it has been known for a long time 
> (say, mcfall 1982, if not earlier) that none of the BH 
> verb forms satisfies any measure of temporal obligatoriety. namely, each of
> them can equally be used as past, present and future.
>  
> if, however, you are willing to consider the second definition 
> as a basis for "tense" (if you object to the nomenclature, 
> pls suggest a better one), i.e.  remove obligatoriety, 
> then you should accept as "tense" also partial
> grammaticalizations. 
> 
> it is this more constructive point of view which i am defending here.
> 
> -------------------------
> 
> the fact that BH is not a tensual language, according to definition 1, does
> not imply that BH is not a tensual
> language, according to definition 2. 
> 
> 
> >>> As far as Hebrew is concerned, there are  two possibilities, 1) Hebrew 
> >>> has
> tenses, and 2) Hebrew is tensless. If it has tenses, they may either be 
> past,
> present, and future, past and future, or finer temporal nuanses are 
> expressed.
>  Please note that tenslessness does not mean that past, present, and future
> does not exist. 
> 
> so far i agree, using definition 1 of tense.
> 
> 
> >>> But a tenseless language expresses past, present, and future in other 
> >>> ways
> than by grammaticalized verb forms.
> 
> here is what i do not agree to. you confuse tense (according to definition 
> 1),
> a very narrow concept, with grammaticalization, which is much wider and is
> consistent with definition 2.
> 
> ----------------------------------
> 
> >>> If you mean that Classical Hebrew is a tense language with many 
> >>> different
> time nuances, you must DEMONSTRATE that. 
> 
> i mean that BH is primarily tensual, according to the second definition. my
> demonstration is all in the document i wrote, all 24 chapters.
> 
> ------------------------------------
> 
> >>> So far you have only made claims.
> 
> let us avoid empty statements. you have all my document's ~pp300.
> 
> -------------------------------------
> 
> >>> The basic test to find out whether a language is a tense language, is to
> look for at least one verb form which has a uniform time reference, either
> past or future. If such a form is not found, the language is tenseless,
> Therefore, my tests are meaningful indeed.
> 
> i already agreed BH is not tensual according to definition 1.
> 
> -------------------------------------
> 
> >>> Let us now make a test from the Hebrew text itself, from Jeremiah 50 and
> 51, that already have been mentioned. The chapters contain prophecies about
> the fall of Babylon. My analysis of the temporal references of the verbs are
> as follows:
> 
> 111 QATALs; future reference: 59; past: 14; present: 10; present completed
> (English "perfect") 21, present: 5; modal: 2.
> 
> 55 WEQATALs; future reference: 55
> 
> YIQTOL: 82; future reference: 82
> 
> WEYIQTOL: 2; future reference: 2
> 
> WAYYIQTOLs: 6; future reference: 6
> 
> How will you account for the 59 QATALs with future reference, compared with
> the 14 with past reference? How will you account for the 6 WAYYIQTOLs with
> future reference?
> 
> ------------
> 
> if your aim is to show that BH is not a tense language, according to the 
> first
> definition,i already agreed. 
> 
> but if indeed you want to go FURTHER, leave TERRA FIRME and discuss the
> precise verb semantics of each one of the verbs in jer 50-51, in the 
> sense of the second definition, and my analysis, compared with your own
> conclusions, i take up the challenge. isnt this what the BHVS 
> enigma is about?
> 
> it might take me a couple of days to prepare it.
> 
> Best regards,
> nir cohen
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew