>Imperfective is expressed in the BE V-ing forms and perfective in the
>HAVE V-ed forms. The reason the meanings (e.g. the conative) do not
>match across languages has more to do with the inventory of other
>forms available in a language, e.g. English also has unmarked forms
>(Carlota Smith's "neutral aspect"), viz. the simple past, present and
>the will V future. Also, I wouldn't say that Aktionsart (Smith's
>"situation aspect") is objective, but that it is inherently a property
>of the verb.
>
I does my heart good to hear a linguist say this... The idea that the only
the singular verb form can be grammaticalized is, as I said, too rigid a
concept in my mind.
I also agree wholeheartedly with the idea that if we call Aktionsart
"objective", that we understand that its because of the lexical meaning of
the verb/-al action.
Many of the things which have been discussed in these threads are the
reasons that I like Fanning's treatment of Verbal Aspect so much; I'd be
interested in hearing from some of the linguists on their reaction to Fanning.
***********************************************************************
Dale M. Wheeler, Th.D.
Research Professor in Biblical Languages Multnomah Bible College
8435 NE Glisan Street Portland, OR 97220
Voice: 503-251-6416 FAX:503-254-1268 E-Mail: dalemw@teleport.com
***********************************************************************