Galia wrote:
> Moon-RyulJung wrote:
> Until I see a strong evidence for Galia's assumption that wayyiqtol
> is different from English simple past (minus stative verbs)...
>
> Most of the examples I gave to show that the simple past in English
> does not necessarily build a new R-time were, indeed, stative clauses.
> However, recall that I showed that in certain contexts the second clause in
> (1) below may be understood NOT to move the time forward, although it is
> eventive. But consider also (2) with two different agents:
>
> 1. Mary entered the room. She turned the light on...
> 2. (Yesteraday) John finished his article and Mary started her book.
Yes, so the simple past in English can perform a multitude of
functions wrt R-time, it would seem. I believe this is because
English is a "mixed" language (I usually say a "slumgullian
language" but that's awfully idiomatic for a forum such as this!)
whose syntax is a patchwork of various influences from here, there
and everywhere. For this reason, I have suspected for a long time
that English is a lousy language one which to base a theory of
synatx because it behaves so erratically.