Is this the way to study grammar?
Posted: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:51 pm
On Friday, 27 Sept, Rolf Furuli stated the following:
“RF: Your words above point to the most serious weakness in the studies of Hebrew verbs. Certain definitions of aspect (among several possible definitions) are chosen BEFORE the study starts, and the conclusion of whether or not Hebrew is an aspectual language is based on these definitions. The answer could have been different if other definitions were chosen.”
Since “aspect” is already defined, shouldn’t we use that definition, then see if Hebrew fits it? Since there’s already a standard definition for “aspect”, shouldn’t that be the definition used?
“The only remedy to this is to use units that are "smaller" than aspects, …”
???? You mean not to use the standard definition?
“… in order to find whether there is a particular pattern in the use of verbs, which would indicate that Hebrew is an aspectual language; and in that case, what the definition of these aspects are.”
This sounds backwards. This sounds like à priori deciding that Biblical Hebrew is an aspectual language, then defining aspect to fit the use. Since there’s a standard definition of aspect, namely a reference to type of time (point, continuous, repeated, starting, ending, etc.), why not use that and compare Biblical Hebrew to that definition?
“ There are three such units, namely, event time, reference time, and deictic center.”
Are these not tense, not aspect? How is tense a subunit of aspect?
“ Aspects can be described by the relationship between event time and reference time.”
???? How so?
“ By applying these parameters (units) to different languages, we will find that aspects must be given different definitions in different languages,…”
Isn’t this an invitation for linguistic chaos?
“ and some languages, such as Norwegian, do not have aspects at all.”
On what basis do you claim that Norwegian doesn’t have aspect? Isn’t it on an à priori definition for ‘aspect’?
“ The advantage of this approach is that our definitions of Hebrew aspects are the RESULT of a careful study of a great number of Hebrew verbs, and not definitions that are randomly or haphazardly chosen BEFORE our study begins.”
I don’t see anything that is random or haphazard in the choice of a definition for “aspect”, rather what I find is a standard that is used throughout linguistics.
My understanding is that we have standard definitions for various actions noticed within linguistics. Therefore, to decide whether or not a language has that particular action, that we first look at the definition, then see if that language has standard ways to describe that action. To me, it appears that Rolf’s approach is backwards—that he à priori defined Biblical Hebrew as an aspectual language, then shopped for a definition for “aspect” and ended up with something that is very unstandard.
Would it not be better to coin a neologism than to redefine a term that has an already defined meaning? Does not the latter cause confusion, rather than communication?
Karl W. Randolph.
“RF: Your words above point to the most serious weakness in the studies of Hebrew verbs. Certain definitions of aspect (among several possible definitions) are chosen BEFORE the study starts, and the conclusion of whether or not Hebrew is an aspectual language is based on these definitions. The answer could have been different if other definitions were chosen.”
Since “aspect” is already defined, shouldn’t we use that definition, then see if Hebrew fits it? Since there’s already a standard definition for “aspect”, shouldn’t that be the definition used?
“The only remedy to this is to use units that are "smaller" than aspects, …”
???? You mean not to use the standard definition?
“… in order to find whether there is a particular pattern in the use of verbs, which would indicate that Hebrew is an aspectual language; and in that case, what the definition of these aspects are.”
This sounds backwards. This sounds like à priori deciding that Biblical Hebrew is an aspectual language, then defining aspect to fit the use. Since there’s a standard definition of aspect, namely a reference to type of time (point, continuous, repeated, starting, ending, etc.), why not use that and compare Biblical Hebrew to that definition?
“ There are three such units, namely, event time, reference time, and deictic center.”
Are these not tense, not aspect? How is tense a subunit of aspect?
“ Aspects can be described by the relationship between event time and reference time.”
???? How so?
“ By applying these parameters (units) to different languages, we will find that aspects must be given different definitions in different languages,…”
Isn’t this an invitation for linguistic chaos?
“ and some languages, such as Norwegian, do not have aspects at all.”
On what basis do you claim that Norwegian doesn’t have aspect? Isn’t it on an à priori definition for ‘aspect’?
“ The advantage of this approach is that our definitions of Hebrew aspects are the RESULT of a careful study of a great number of Hebrew verbs, and not definitions that are randomly or haphazardly chosen BEFORE our study begins.”
I don’t see anything that is random or haphazard in the choice of a definition for “aspect”, rather what I find is a standard that is used throughout linguistics.
My understanding is that we have standard definitions for various actions noticed within linguistics. Therefore, to decide whether or not a language has that particular action, that we first look at the definition, then see if that language has standard ways to describe that action. To me, it appears that Rolf’s approach is backwards—that he à priori defined Biblical Hebrew as an aspectual language, then shopped for a definition for “aspect” and ended up with something that is very unstandard.
Would it not be better to coin a neologism than to redefine a term that has an already defined meaning? Does not the latter cause confusion, rather than communication?
Karl W. Randolph.