yqtl patterns and Anson Rainey
c stirling bartholomew
cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net
Thu Jun 14 03:59:26 EDT 2001
>>> For example, most prefix verbs and vav hahippux suffix verbs, when referring
>>> to the future, do not present an "imperfective" in-process event: "he will
>>> be coming . . .", but to a singulative, perfective, future event: "he will
>>> come". That is, most of those verbs are not "aspectually imperfective" . . .
>> How can we determine that when a speaker wanted to mark time that they didn't
>> want ot mark aspect? And also the obvious complement, when a speaker wanted
>> to mark aspect that they didn't want to mark time? Again can this be
on 6/13/01 3:27 PM, Peter Kirk wrote:
> I note that this is similar to Greek (but not Russian or English) in
> that aspect distinctions are not made in the future.
I now see that I completely missed the point of this portion of Randall's
post. Now I see that he is limiting his statement with the qualification:
>>> to the future
This qualification somehow didn't register the first time around.
Thanks for your help with this.
Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
Three Tree Point
P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
More information about the b-hebrew