--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Rob" <magwich78@...> wrote:
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "nathrao" <nathrao@...> wrote:
>
> > The marker is the "past tense" -ed ending. "Carried" seems to imply
> > punctuality; "carries/is carrying" do not.
>
> So what is 'punctuality'? Does it mean some interval of time
> (could be years in extent) conceived of as a blob, or does it
> mean 'a very short duration of time'?
>
> ***
> Patrick:
>
> My opinion is that the length of the duration is secondary to the
idea with
> "progressive", something happens during the time; and with
> "non-progressive", something happens before the time or after the
time. For
> "non-progressive", tThe duration, however long, is regarded as if it
were a
> point during which nothing _can_ happen.
>
> ***
We are just going around in circles. Something >can< happen
during a blob of time. That is disregarded in aspect.
The question boils down to two things:
(1) Do you think that 'accomplishment' exists as a category or
not?
The article I mentioned up the thread is a good starting point
for this. Full details of the article:
H-J Sasse, Aspect and Aktionsart, in Perspectives on Aspect and
Aktionsart, C. Vetters (Ed), Belgion J of Ling v.6
(2) How did PIE treat activities, achievements and accomplishments
(ACTI, TTER, GTER in Sasse's terminology)?
Aspect discussions are confused due to the tendecy to deny the
existence of difference between achivements and accomplishments,
and to confuse activities (run, walk) with states (know, be tall).
For example, languages with progressives allow progressives with
activities and accomplishments, but not states (they tend to
differ in how they treat habitual state of affairs, which is the
only possible reading for progressive + achievement). On the
other hand, accomplishments and achievements have a right hand
end point, so in aspectual languages they tend to be grouped
together. And yes there exist languages that have both a progressive
and a perfective vs imperfective distinction (in spite of claims
that that is impossible).
Some references to read to understand the above:
O. Dahl, "Tense and aspect systems", Blackwell, New york, 1985.
Bybee & Dahl, The Creation of Tense and Aspect Systems in the
Languages of the World. Studies in Language, 13: 51-103.
Bybee et al, "The evolution of grammar", U. Chicago Press, Chicago, 1994.
Another good exercise is to try to come to grips with the
categories 'imperfective aorist' and 'perfective imperfect'
in Bulgarian and OCS.
I intend to abandon this thread till we can get this theoretical
issue straightened out.
Nath Rao