Re: THEORY: Auxiliaries

--- En réponse à Christophe Grandsire:

> Well, it was written with two words. Also,
> whether it is written in one word or
> two doesn't change much of my analysis, since
> "forever" is quite clearly identical to "for
> ever" :)) .
I agree. I don't see what the difference is.
Forever is simply composed of for + ever and
means through all time.

> English auxiliaries are clearly becoming mood
> and
> aspect prefixes (the fact that they are losing
> accent and that their "past"
> forms slowly lose their past meanings and
> become separate modals is a clear
> sign. The last one is clear with the pair
> "can-could" where the past form is
> clearly losing its past status to become a
> separate modal indicating a smaller
> probability than "can".
Well, the two (present and past forms) simply
mark different aspects or moods. For me, none of
them really mark tense - not even can/could.

Can marks a real ability, could marks any
potential.

Padraic.


=====
To him that seeks, if he knock, the door will be opened;
if he seeks, he shall find his way; if he searches for a way, he shall find his path.
For though the Way is narrow, it's wisdom is written in the hearts of all:
if ye would seek and find Rest, look first within!


.