In grammar, the root fallacy is a matter of pragmatic not semantic
definition. As the cases may legitimately have a semantic value despite
diverse pragmatic functions, so the verb forms may be defined in similar
fashion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Here we run into another termiology problem. There seems to be no end
to these problems. Reading Rod and Rolf I was not, even with some effort,
able to sort out how they were using the term pragmatic. I know this term
has been used a lot in linguistics and I have a fuzzy sense of what it means
but when discussing the *aspect* of the aorist, I do not see how this is an
issue of *semantics* where as *function* is an issue of *pragmatics.*
(Possibly we are using the word *function* differently.) What is the
distinction between pragmatics and semantics *in this dicusson*, not a
text book definition, I already have text book definitions. How is the
distinction being drawn in the present discussion on verb aspect.
Clay Bartholomew
Three Tree Point