It is completely impossible to start out with no ideas. But it is possible to start out
with the right motivation.
I think the value of Rolf's research should not be determined or undermined by the influences
he has had but by the fruit of his labours. His arguments stand up to criticism and are very
purely liguistically based. He has analysed the usage of the forms and has both seen and shown
that their usage is not uniform enough to grammaticalise tense into the verb form itself.
Yes, I do hold that language, including verb forms, can be understood only from context. I suppose I hold that there are no distinctions which are "semantic" according to Rolf's very strict definition. But I don't agree with him on several important issues; for example I hold, and he denies, that there is a semantic and grammaticalised distinction (probably primarily aspcetual) between WAYYIQTOL and vav + YIQTOL. In fact I don't even accept that he has proven that tense is not grammaticalised, because I don't think his method is capable in principle of proving this - although I would not argue that tense is grammaticalised.
He is agreeing with you but coming from another direction.
You (Peter) and I are very strong proponents of contextual influences in translation and Rolf's
conclusions lead to the same thing. As he has proven that tense is not grammaticalised in the verb
forms it is the context, not the verb-form, which dictates the tense to be used in English.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.