Dear Randall:
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 12:05 AM, Randall Buth <randallbuth AT gmail.com>wrote:
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 9:23 PM, K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I have never heard of the term T-A-M before, so can you explain it?
It is linguistic notation for "tense-aspect-mood" and often used in
comparative discussions where languages have divergent or blurred TAM
systems. It recognizes that languages often have forms and categories
in the verb system where tense-aspect-mood parameters cannot be easily
or neatly separated in the morphology. And it allows for neutral
discussion of systems where the parameters may be difficult to define,
or may differ with different theoretical assumptions/definitions.
What follows is my trying to understand what you wrote.
In other words, this is a tool used in linguistic analysis for comparative
linguistics, to see how verbal usage in different languages differ, and as a
tool to help with translation? How does this work when we limit the
discussion internal to Biblical Hebrew itself?
> As far as Judges 13:3, the waws indicate a continuation of the > narration,
> just as I indicated.
So you claim that extra words mean that the narration is continuing.
(And by narration you are including the quoted speech, here, which is
fine.)
My responses had assumed more than tautology in your response,
especially since one of the common 'explanations' ('first [and second]
year lies') is that the T-A-M system of Hebrew is continued by
induction with the sequential verb structures. Which is not how Hebrew
works. Not only does that 'inducted TAM' not fit the data, as
mentioned, but it doesn't explain why Hebrew would have two sequential
structures for a single process of induction. The two structures carry
different TAM. Perhaps we're agreed on this.
In trying to understand your response, I found the following site:
http://www.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryOfLinguisticTerms/contents.htm
Tense—I think we agree that Biblical Hebrew verbal morphology does not
convey tense. At least that’s how I also understand the research mentioned
that led to Dr. Furuli’s dissertation.
Aspect—as I understand the above site’s explanation, is a subset of tense,
hence irrelevant to Biblical Hebrew.
Mood—?? I don’t understand the above site’s explanation. All I can say for
certain is that it does not appear to be the same as when I use the term
“mood”.
How does this relate to the question?
As I understand the original question, it was on how to explain the
waw-conversive. My response was that there is enough disagreement among
scholars and among members of this group that the only thing to say for
certain is that the waw indicates a continuation. In other words, I made a
statement that shows the limits to what we as a group agree on.
Karl W. Randolph.
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.