[tied] Re: IE thematic presents and the origin of their thematic vo

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "nathrao" <nathrao@...> wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>

wrote:

>
> > My gut feeling is that the durative/punctual contrast is not
> > terribly fundamental in historical terms, [...]
> > inherently "present" or "aorist" value of a verb was a
> > function of its meaning, so that it tended to be used in
> > certain contexts, accompanied by certain adverbs, etc.,
> > but didn't have to be specially marked for aspect.
>
> The thing to do is to look for contemporary languages that have
> durative vs punctual as a fundamental distinction and study them,
> to understand how PIE may have evolved.

Modern English actually seems to have such a distinction. For
example, the verb "carry" has an inherently durative meaning --
"carries" and "is carrying" mean (virtually) the same thing.
However, the verb "find" is inherently aorist, since "is finding" can
be understood only with an ingressive or inchoative sense along with
the durative.

This distinction seems to be why English speakers so easily
interchange the "simple present" with the "present progressive" in
durative verbs -- for example, "I wonder why you are here" and "I am
wondering why you are here" have the same meaning.

- Rob