Dear Nir,
I note that you are fond of negative terms. I found "loophole" 3 times,
"logical fallacy" 3 times, "logical misuse" 1 time, "empty tautologies" 1 time,
"demagogy" 1 time, and "cheap demagogy" 1 time.
I do not say that your work is rubbish, as you claim I do. But I say that your
definition of tense (" definition 2: (mine) tense as that part of verb
semantics which is neither aspect nor mood. namely, ANY grammaticalized use
which expresses temporal relations.") explains nothing.
>
> 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.
In your chapter II there are several definitions and rules. But I found no
definition of the two most basic concepts, on which all the other definitions
rest, namely, tense and aspect. Please tell us in simple words what aspect is,
and what is the distinction between the perfective and imperfective aspect. And
please tell us in simple words what tense is, particularly what is the meaning
of "ANY grammaticalized use." What is "grammaticalization"?
> 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.
As far as mathematics is concerned you are correct. But you are wrong in
connection with a dead language. Here a definition must be treated as a
hypothesis, and a hypothesis can predict something.
For example, you define waw-consecutive in the following way: "a waw-relative
which expresses immediacy or continuity." This definition, which is a
hypothesis, predicts that whenevever we find a waw-consecutive in normal
contexts, it signals immediacy or continuity. So the definition does predict
something!
Best regards,
Rolf Furuli
Stavern
Norway
Søndag 8. September 2013 04:02 CEST skrev "Nir cohen - Prof. Mat."
<[email protected]>:
>
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________> b-hebrew mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
