From: Daniel Ria–o (danielrr@mad.servicom.es)
Date: Fri Dec 05 1997 - 07:59:29 EST
>the question
>remains as to whether it is legitimate in any instance to translate a
>predicate nominative with anything other than an implied present indicative
>of EIMI
This opinion has been maintained by such linguists as Hjelmslev,
but in my view it is plain wrong. If a verb is omitted in the context (as
in Ep.Phil.3.15), it is the context what determines not only the mood and
tense of the verb, but also it's semantics. But even if we have a "pure"
nominal sentence, then it is not necessary to suppose an ei)mi/ implied. I
don't have examples at hand, but it must be easy to find nominal sentences
in the Corpus Paroemiographorum where the implicit tense must be a (gnomic)
aorist (and cf. Spanish "En Roma como los romanos, etc. sc. "haz").
Daniel (in pure linguistic terms)
___________________________________________________________________
Daniel Rian~o Rufilanchas
c. Santa Engracia 52, 7 dcha.
28010-Madrid
Espan~a
e-mail: danielrr@mad.servicom.es
Tel./Fax. 34-1-4482027
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:36 EDT