Dave Washburn <dwashbur AT nyx.net> wrote:
"..... But as you may have gathered from this board, the perfect/imperfect thing doesn't exactly work, either. We're fairly sure that BH isn't tensed, but it doesn't really seem to be aspectual, either. That's why many of us are engaged in ongoing research, trying to figure out exactly what it is (at the moment, we can only tell you what it isn't). "
-- Now the mystery really deepens: if the above is correct, how could this
language have been in use for thousands of years, been translated to
practically every written language; how could commentators delude themselves
they understaood it -- since the the days of the Dead Sea Scrolls at least,
if its very basic verbal system defies comprehension?
Perhaps it is simply the difference between the use of a language on the
one hand, and the grammatical tools that are employed to analyze it, tools
that by their nature are constructs and abstractions?
Uri
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.