From: clayton stirling bartholomew (c.s.bartholomew@worldnet.att.net)
Date: Tue Nov 14 2000 - 14:57:08 EST
on 11/14/00 10:19 AM, Randall Buth wrote:
> I think that the comments have been in the right direction, though I would
> like to clarify with a question:
> I hope that no one is suggesting that Greek
> changed from
> and ancient, tense+aspect
> to Hellenisitc, aspect only
> to modern, tense+aspect
> ?
>
> That strikes me as problematic, (which is PC for wrong).
>
> ERRWSO
> Randall Buth
What are you suggesting Randall? That Hellenistic is not aspect only?
Was Greek ever aspect only? This raises a different question about aspect
marking in a non-aphlabetic language. How would aspect have been marked in
the pre-alphabetic era of the Greek language? How is aspect marked in a
language like Summerian?
I have always had a sneaking suspicion that aspect in Greek is not
necessarily tied to morphology but communicated by other indicators found in
the middle level semantic discourse structure. This idea isn't something I
would be willing to fight about.
Clay
--
Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
Three Tree Point
P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:41 EDT