Nir:
On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Nir cohen - Prof. Mat. <[email protected]>wrote: > dear colleagues, > > i would like to respond to some of the remarks made here, especially by > rolf > and karl, concerning tense and time. > > ------------------ > > PART I: GENERALITIES on tams and models > > linguistics is an empirical field. it is difficult to say > if it is a science or not. As long as linguistics limits itself to being an empirical study, it can be a science. It’s when linguists try to go beyond empirical studies that it appears to me that they leave science behind. Is TAM the linguistic equivalent to the physics’ “unified theory”? > … indeed, > two individuals spaking the same mother tongue are expected to use similar > sentences; however, each person has a speaking style, and so linguistics > can > at best hope at an approximation of "common talk". > > but even physics, as an empirical science, has its problems. karl is wrong > if > he believes that physics consists of a single model. see the quest for the > so-called "unified theory". > not even every physical prediction is unanimous. time and distance of the > same > object, in relativity theory, are measured differently by different > observers. > physics also has many unanswered questions, like black matter, black > energy, > etc etc. physics is capable to verify its predictions only up to a certain > precision. > The questions go deeper that listed above. I’m reminded of Tesla’s rejection of Einstein’s general relativity because it predicted different results than what Tesla was observing in the lab. I expect that limits on human understanding will prevent a “unified theory”. > > ------------------ > > why TAM is not a single model, asks karl. > > the point of view of most linguistic works, including those inclined > towards > theory, is the practical one: constructing a simple model, based on a small > number of parameters, for > imitating the bulk of speech, i.e. "standard use". there is no hope to > describe all the deviations utterable by all the individuals. thus, at > best we > have an approximation of reality. > That’s not the question. The question is definitions—just what do the terms mean so that we can arrive at “an approximation of "common talk".” as you call it above? > > this point of practicality results in terms being used by different > researchers in slightly different ways. of course, > karl, we could have incorporated them all into a single notational > monster system, which would require constant updating. then it would fit > your > criterion for a "good basis for debate", but would be worthless for every > practical purpose. > It looks as if you completely missed the boat in the above paragraph. I’m not looking for a unified theory, all I look for is consistent application of individual parts. > > … > > fitting the same model to all languages is > like fitting the same shoe to all feet. even if you extend your definition > of > shoe with as many parameters as you wish, it will never fit all feet. > That’s exactly my criticism of TAM as I presently understand it. > > The existence of different TAM approaches has two sources: > variation between the languages, dialects, genres studied, > and variation between the different scholars' perception of them. > this creates a certain pluralism, which is acceptable and even > necessary, given the complexity of the subject. hopefully, one day in the > future we will have a single model. > ???? > > ------------------------ > > PART II, BH TEMPORALITY > > … > My understanding is that much of this discussion depends on how one uses the words in the above section. > > ---------------------------------- > > PART III: BH TENSE > > are the BH verb forms TENSES? here we need to flexibilize our definitions > not > only of time, but also of tense. > That’s exactly the problem! If everyone uses his own definition, how do we arrive at “an approximation of "common talk".”? > > in BH, the preterite is a combination of qatal+wayiqtol, jointly but not > separately. > > the future indicative is yiqtol+weqatal, jointly but not separately. > > the subjunctive, ditto. > ???? > > the repeated event, ditto. > > the volitive, ditto. LK W)MRT > > in all of them, the waw-prefixed form is used as sequel, UNLESS SYNTAX > INTERVENES, and the wawless forms are used for non-sequel > (initial, parallel, remote past and future, syndetic), with the same > caveat. > > nir cohen > > Karl W. Randolph.
_______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
