peterkirk at qaya.org
Wed Jul 27 11:07:03 EDT 2005
On 27/07/2005 15:06, Ken Penner wrote:
>>>>"All singing, all dancing" as a description of a product (e.g.
>I am unclear about what the "singing" might refer to in this article, but I
>don't see that it excludes change or duration. Are you suggesting that when
>it "sings" nothing is happening? Or that it is instantaneous?
No, my point here is that the meaning here is stative rather than
dynamic, because a disk drive is a essentially static product. OK, it
rotates, but I don't think this movement is what "singing" is about here.
>>>>"'Is that true?" he asked. 'No', he continued"? (OK, it takes
>>>>time to utter even the short word "No", but very few of
>>even the most
>>>>punctiliar verbs are actually strictly instantaneous.)
>It seems to me that the event that is continued is the speech begun by the
>previous statement, "Is it true?" It extends the event to include the new
>statement, "No." One might argue that during the pause between the two
>statements, the speaker was not "continuing," but in that case the "No"
>would be a resumption, not a continuation of the speech. ...
Yes, this is a resumption rather than a continuation. Nevertheless, the
verb "continue" is regularly used in this sense. That, I suppose, was my
point, that the semantic domain of the verb "continue" is not entirely
restricted to strictly durative senses.
>... It is true that in
>order for the continuation to be considered durative, the second part of the
>event must cover a span of time. One could continue blinking, but only if
>there was more than one blink. So the continuation is durative because the
>statement "No" covers a span of time, even if it is very short.
Well, in practice any event, even the single blink of an eye, takes a
non-zero time. But the semantic concept of punctiliarity does not
exclude this, but only suggests that the event is considered to be brief
and indivisible. If you object that "No!" is divisible into two
phonemes, replace it the continued (or resumed) speech by "Ah!" or "Mm!"
which is one phoneme.
>>>>"She is always creating a fuss"?
>How do you interpret this one? Is there one "fuss" that is constantly in the
>process of being created but which never actually comes into existence, or
>several repeated "fusses" each coming into existence at a different time? I
>think the latter, in other words, "she repeatedly creates fusses." At the
>point the fuss exists, the event of creating has reached its telic point.
>One could argue that that once created, the fuss must be maintained for a
>span of time, thereby extending the telic point to a telic span. I am
>willing to consider that possibility. But creating is still a telic event;
>it is building up to something. Contrast a non-telic event, "He is always
>twiddling his thumbs."
Well, I see your point that there is some kind of telicity in the action
of creating. But I am not sure that the fuss here is something really
being created in this sense. Another example, which excludes the
repetitive interpretation which I did not intend, might be "She has been
creating a fuss for the last hour". Well, presumably the fuss has
already started, so this excludes the normal interpretation of this kind
of sentence with telic verbs that the telic point has not yet been
reached - and that it will be reached at some point in the future if the
action continues. And the alternative that she has been repeatedly
creating separate things is ruled out by the singular "a fuss". So the
Aktionsart here has become somewhat complex, which illustrates my point
that extended and idiomatic senses of verbs don't follow rules that
Aktionart is uncancellable.
peter at qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk at qaya.org (work)
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.5/58 - Release Date: 25/07/2005
More information about the b-hebrew