Re: [tied] Re: Ablaut, hi-conjugation, stress alternation, etc

From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 46765
Date: 2006-12-26

 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, December 25, 2006 5:23 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Ablaut, hi-conjugation, stress alternation, etc

On 2006-12-25 01:14, Patrick Ryan wrote:

> I have tried hard to think of a sentence in which I would consider
> "I shall read" as punctual.
>
> I repeat my request that you do so with the situational context that
> you believe justifies that interpretation.

English does not distinguish between READ meaning 'read something from
the beginning to the end' (when the whole action is viewed as complete
and the speaker expresses no interest in its internal structure or
details such as duration) and other aktionsart interpretations of the
same verb (durative, habitual, iterative). Russian <c^itaju> is durative
(reading in progress) or habitual, while <proc^itaju> is punctual (a
complete act of reading)

***

With all due respect, that is incorrect. It is precisely by adding 'through' that English does distinguish between otherwise permissible interpretations of 'read' as perfective or imperfective.

"I read it through." or "I read through it."

Why do you keep switching between durative/punctual and imperfective/perfective? It blurs the issue.

The primary difference between <c^itaju> and <proc^itaju> is that the former is imperfective and the latter perfective.

Somewhere back along the way I stated that <proc^itaju>, which is perfective, was translated by an Oxford linguist as "I shall read through"

That is correct whatever you might think. 'read', according to you, apparently, may be imperfective or perfective. Even granting that, 'read through' must be acknowledged (hopefully, even by you) as an _unambiguous_  way of  designating a perfective employment of 'read'.

***


READ can be regarded as punctual in such sentences as:

I'll read your paper and return it with comments.
I'll read the book twice to get the most of it.
I'll read only the last paragraph of each chapter.

Note that the punctual interpretation doesn't mean that the act itself
takes very little time. It only means that the duration doesn't matter.

Piotr

***

The three examples you offer do not, to me, convey perfectivity.

So the question of whether they are legitimate translations of <proc^itaju> is moot.

I see in them nothing which would make me conclude that any of the readings were punctual. On the contrary, one could substitute 'be reading' for 'read' in any of the three without any change of meaning, proving that they are not contextually punctual.

Perhaps you are being influenced by what you consider to be the Russian equivalent.

Patrick

***