On Sat, 31 Aug 2013 18:43:05 +0200To me the difference seems purely terminological. I am fine with your "semantic past reference". My point is that we should not expect 100 % correspondence between past reference and a past tense grammatical form even in tense languages.
"Rolf" <rolf.furuli AT sf-nett.no> wrote:
…
> If tense is defined as "grammaticalized location in time (Comrie)," I have problems with your statement: "traditional past tense (as a grammatical category) does not correspond exactly to the semantic past tense." If we accepts Comrie's definition, "semantic past tense" should have have read "semantic past reference. We cannot have two different kinds of "past tense." This is not nitpicking, but highly significant in a discussion of tense and aspect.
My point is that we need not expect all of them to have past reference or all of them to describe a perfective situation to say that TMA is relevant for the analysis of the meaning of the form.
> For example, are the WAYYIQTOLs in narrative YIQTOLs with past reference, or do they have an intrinsic past tense, or do they represent the perfective aspect?
Kimmo Huovila
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.