[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
No Subject
I don't want to enter an abstruse discussion of how aspect and Aktionsart ought
to be understood. If necessary, maybe we can state what we mean by it, and
maybe some others will understand us.
I don't have to formulate elaborate lists of exceptions to the punctiliarity of
the aorist, e.g. constantive & alia ad infinitum, because the mistake of
assuming a punctiliar conceptualization might be implied by the forms became
apparent early in my career. (Thank the Lord for the gpammatikh = grammatice of
ta3ic nevte = taxis pente 'fifth grade = form' over in Greece, which may induce
one to contemplate the history of the terminology.)
Now some may force me to write more than would otherwise be needed because of
misinterpretations of my statements, but that's another matter. We'll see.
The foregoing emerged from my consciousness because of the following statement:
<<Aspect is a viewpoint, namely the way a reporter chooses to portray a real
event, and this does not necessarily coincide with its objective contents. The
important question is whether the event is portrayed as bounded (the end is
included) or unbounded (a part of it not including the end is viewed).>>
As for sentence no. 1, obviously the report and the objective contents may
differ, but look at sentence no.2: The question declared important seems to
rest upon the unexamined assumption that some bounding or unbounding must
inevitably be 'portrayed' by said reporter. Wow.
shalom,
bearded bill of asheville <bthurman@unca.edu>
unca not having approved either whom or thereof.
p.s. need to soften statement about p-w article. one at least needs to get from
somewhere the equivalent of reading it.