Piotr said:
> I have presented the orthodox view of the aspect system
Yes, I know full well. But I thought it needed the small hint of caution,
which I was pleased to see in your words:
> why not use those hints (with due caution)?
With this caveat, I agree with you that:
> the evidence of Greek usage accounts for the existence of different
formations and it would be an even worse sin to ignore it.
I guess my problem is - as always - when something which I believe should be
cautiously stated appears to have been presented as established fact.
I don't, however, agree that this satement of yours is necessarily true:
> the clear formal difference between the original patterns implies a
functional contrast
I'd accept "strongly suggests", but I don't think it _must_ be the case.
There are examples in modern languages of formal differences without
functional contrast - sometimes the contrast has been lost, but sometimes it
was never there, and sometimes the distinction is then used by a language to
develop a new functional contrast. It is at least conceivable that this is
what Greek did.
Peter