Re[4]: [tied] Re: Ablaut, hi-conjugation, stress alternation, etc

At 11:56:25 PM on Monday, December 25, 2006, Patrick Ryan
wrote:

> Brian M. Scott:

>> 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.

Not grossly more so, I suspect, than any other: it merely
differs from some in the ways in which it is not
*obligatorily* unambiguous.

> But, one cannot say:

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

> can one?

Yes, I think so, though in this case it would perhaps more
likely mean that I'll read it from start to finish
repeatedly until I get bored.

>> [...]

>>>> 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.

[...]

>>> 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.

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

That was intended as a generic 'you'; substitute 'one has'
if it makes you happier. But yes, I consider the
differences sufficiently obvious that I'm more than a bit
surprised to find a native speaker claiming that they don't
exist.

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

I refer you to the explanation of a similar distinction in
message nr. 46761.

Brian