Re: Deep Confusion

clayton stirling bartholomew (c.s.bartholomew@worldnet.att.net)
Mon, 25 May 1998 15:37:38 +0000

Rolf Furuli wrote:
>
>
> Structures which are the diametrically opposite of the "deep structures",
> because they are the very backbone, both of the Greek and Hebrew verbal
> systems, are the aspects. These are clear surface structures because all
> the verbs are organized around them, using them as their skeleton. Judging
> from the role they play, the aspects are the most important structures in
> the whole verbal system, so how can you be consistent in denying the
> importance of the "deep structures" because their foundation is
> speculative, and at the same time denying the importance of the aspects
> although they are the most distinctive surface structures?
>
Rolf

You will probably notice that when it comes to language models, I tend to pose
questions and not give answers. My own personal language model has a sign in
front of it that reads "Under Construction." My recent reading in Moises Silva
is causing me to radically rethink very high level questions about language
architecture. While I am working this out I am probably not going to have much
to say about verb aspect. Every time I get embroiled in this subject the
discussion gets bogged down in all kinds of misunderstandings. Let it suffice
for now to say that I have not rejected the very existence of verb aspect, but
I don't know if it is going to play an important role in my language model.

To this biased observer (myself) the discussions of verb aspect appear
highly speculative, almost metaphysical in tone. As you have pointed out this
may be just a hang-up of native speakers of English.

I am glad we agree to some extent on the "transformational" question.

Clay 

-- 
Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
Three Tree Point
P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062