In the context of this discussion you have essentially said that the "imperfect" should be recognized as consistently representing a future tense.
The future tense may describe a past event because of a shift of the deictic center. The fact that the imperfect may describe a past event proves the deictic shift.
This brings us to the start of your email. . . "a hypothesis can be accepted if no contradicting facts can be brought against it, and if the hypothesis is simpler than others."
Contradicting facts have been brought against your hypothesis. Short of Moses tapping you on the shoulder and telling you that your hypothesis is wrong, what evidence would you feel is sufficient to make you re-evaluate your hypothesis?
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.