Re: Re[2]: [tied] Re: Ablaut, hi-conjugation, stress alternation, e

----- Original Message -----

From: Brian M. Scott

To: Patrick Ryan

Sent: Monday, December 25, 2006 9:59 PM

Subject: Re[2]: [tied] Re: Ablaut, hi-conjugation, stress alternation, etc

At 8:41:27 PM on Monday, December 25, 2006, Patrick Ryan wrote:

> Piotr Gasiorowski:

>> 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."

'I shall read through it until I get bored and abandon it.'
As this example shows, 'read through' need not be
perfective.

***

Yes, English is disgracefully ambiguous.

But, one cannot say:

'I shall read it through until I get bored . . ."

can one?

***
[...]

>> 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.

> 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.

Hardly.

> 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.

Only if you have a tin ear; the differences are at least as
clear as they were last time.

[...]

Brian

***

Ah, we are back to so-called moderators taking the liberty of insulting posters ("tin ear").

If the "differences"  are so "clear", why not take a moment or two to explain at length any one of the three examples?

 

Patrick

***