And here is something that DK seems to have overlooked, namely, that narrative sequences have different properties that cannot be ascribed to the verb forms: B. Comrie (1985) "Tense" p. 63 says:
"In looking for examples of relative time reference, it is essential to ensure that the relative time reference interpretation is part of the meaning of the form in question, rather than an implicature derived from, in part, the context. One area which is particularly confusing in this respect is narrative, where one gains the impression that a sequence of events which are located temporally one almost immediately after the other, the chronological sequence mirrored in a linear order of clauses. Thus one might be tempted to think that this sequencing is part of the meaning of the verb forms used, thus introducing a meaning of 'immediate past' or 'immediate future' relative time reference (depending on whether one defined the time reference of the preceding verb in terms of the following verb, vice versa). However, as was shown in section 1.8 this sequencing of events is a property of the narrative itself, quite independent of the verb form used to encode the narrative, so that the mere fact that verb forms receive this interpretation in narrative is not sufficient evidence for assigning this meaning to the verb forms."
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.