From: clayton stirling bartholomew (c.s.bartholomew@worldnet.att.net)
Date: Sat May 29 1999 - 14:03:11 EDT
> I agree with you. It goes without saying this this issue is the reason that
> certain theories on aspect are credible. However, if the semantic properties
> of process are assigned to tense-aspect morphological markings, then the
> resulting theories on aspect will not resolve anything. And furthermore,
> such theories tend to be characterized by a proliferation of complicated
> exceptions and special categories, for which lexis and context may give
> account.
>
> I hope that I didn't give you the impression that I thought otherwise due to
> my obscure brevity or perhaps clumsy wording.
>
> Cindy Westfall
> PhD Student, Roehampton
Cindy agrees with me which is not a total surprise since we have been
talking about this on and off for months (years?). My observations were
not really directed at Cindy's post but directed at the whole manner in
which this discussion has been approached by the several parties
involved.
To discuss verb tense/aspect with any clarity one should fit it into a
well articulated total language model. Since much of this discussion has
to do with the semantic value of tense/aspect markings, the discussion
needs to be fit into a complete system of semantics which includes all
the layers from lexical semantics to discourse semantics. Discussions of
tense/aspect semantics which isolate the topic from other semantic
issues are a lot like watching a dog chasing its tail.
-- Clayton Stirling Bartholomew Three Tree Point P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062--- B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:28 EDT