Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Nir cohen - Prof. Mat." <nir AT ccet.ufrn.br>]

dear rolf,

your conclusion

>>> Everything can be subsumed under your definition, and therefore it
explains nothing...

is based on a a huge logical loophole, and moreover smacks of cheap demagogy.
i hope we can conduct a serious discussion and not be dragged to empty
tautologies. 

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

let me explain the logical fallacy(ies):

1. let us just use your definition of tense and forget mine. 
2. let us agree that BH is a language without tense, according to definition 
1.
3. let us accept your theory as proven, stating  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.

[observe that here you accept my counter-examples, and allow certain loopholes
in the statement, which are not well defined yet. but this is not where the
BIG problem with your logic lies.]

4. “Because you are a matematician, I  would like to bring Karl Popper…”. 
agreed.

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

>>> My definition (definition 1), which is the same as Comrie's definition,
predicts that if a language has tenses, one verb form uniformly has…

rolf, i am a mathematician and know the difference between definition and
prediction. a definition cannot predict anything.  this is a  wrong use of
logical terms.

but i guess what you wanted to say is: MY THEORY (i.e. furuli’s), which
subsumes comrie’s definition of tense, ALONG WITH NUMEROUS OTHER LINGUISTIC
ASSUMPTIONS,  predicts that if a language has tenses, one verb form etc etc… 

this unmasks a logical fallacy: you reduce your theory/premises to a single
definition (comrie's definition), whereas in reality you use A WHOLE BODY of
other assumptions. later on you repeat the same fallacy also w.r.t. my work.

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

>>> Therefore, this definition meets Poppers requirement.  It predicts that in
a language with tenses, there is a uniform temporal use of verb forms. 

again, you repeat the same logical misuse and same logical loophole.

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

>>> 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). 

but we have already BOTH agreed BH is not a tense language according to
definition 1. 

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

>>> Everything can be subsumed under your definition, and therefore it
explains nothing. 

as you do with YOUR theory, you do with mine: ignore all the definitions and
constructions which sustain it. this is a logical fallacy.

if you read my CH II you will find EXACT definitions of all the concept i am
talking about. including  abslute time and relative time. nowhere do i use
there the word tense as a direct parameter.  my purpose is NOT to show that BH
is a tense language under definition 1. 

we both know it is not.

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

MUCH WORSE:

>>> Everything can be subsumed under your definition, and therefore it
explains nothing. 

you reduce the word “anything” to the following finite collection of 
sentences:
                              “BH verb form x is consistently of tense value
y”       (*)
where x is, say, any of the four finite BHVFs and y is, say, any of the three
 values “past, present, future”.

so, your “everything” is a tiny little set consisting of 12 statements. 

this is a BLATANT logical fallacy. had i not known you as a serious and
truth-seeking person, i might be led to the conclusion it is cheap demagogy. 
basically, it amounts to saying all my work is rubbish, without really reading
my definitions. you certainly did not read my ch II where the definitions are.
you just use email arguments, which by no means can replace a real academic
debate.

3) more so, i have already conceded in my last email  that under definition 1
BH is NOT a tense language.  above, you make it appear as if i don’t, though
below you say differently:

>>> 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….

-------------------------------------
let me now move to more constructive  lines. 

the fact that BH is not a tense language just says what it IS NOT. it adds
nothing constructive to what it IS. so far, this is all you were saying in
this email debate.

if carl popper had lived today, what would be his conclusions as to the study
of the BH VS?

BH does not express tense (as defined by comrie). therefore, if there is any
chance to form a TAM-like  model, it cannot be based on tense as a definition.
more precisely, none of the twelve statements (*) can be proven, even
approximately, in BH. the conclusion is that all the 12 hypotheses (*) should
all be put aside, and new ones considered and tested.

your 2006 thesis is one proposal. my 2013 document is another. there are 
others.

a serious debate about these works cannot be made by trying to summarize their
statements on email. 

  my theory, for example, consists of the following sentence:

 in BH, repeated events (past, present, future) use consistently the
yiqtol+weqatal verb form.   (*)

1) this claim is fully verifiable in the sense of popper.

2) i also claim it is backed up by a devastating statistics, which is as good
as the one available for the claim that the simple past tense in english is
used only on absolute past eventualities.

 so, you may choose to ignore it or refute it. but it would be a cheap
demagogy to say it is not verifiable and "explains nothing".

i would be more interesting in examining how NEW ideas in BH research can be
promoted, rather than listen once more how this or that word ONCE AGAIN proves
that the old ideas were wrong.

nir cohen