yqtl patterns and Anson Rainey

c stirling bartholomew cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net
Thu Jun 14 03:59:26 EDT 2001


Randal Wrote

>>> 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" . . .
>>> 

CSB wrote: 
>> 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
>> demonstrated?
>> 
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.

Thanks Peter,

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:

>>>when referring 
>>> to the future 

This qualification somehow didn't register the first time around.

Thanks for your help with this.

Clay



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





More information about the b-hebrew mailing list