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.


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

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list