From: c stirling bartholomew <cc.constantine AT worldnet.att.net>
To: Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Subject: Re: yqtl patterns and Anson Rainey
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 00:59:26 -0700
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