> Sai Emrys wrote:
>> I'm re-re-watching Pearson's talk, and wonder... there's telic, and
>> atelic... is there an anti-telic?
>>
>> This would be a verb that not just doesn't have a *necessary*
>> endpoint, or *can* continue indefinitely, but *must* continue
>> indefinitely. (Aspect would also be a bit weird with it.)
>
> But can _anything_ continue indefinitely in a temporal universe?
>
> Even the universe itself will end, according to some, in the the 'Big
> Crunch'; tho according to others it just goes on, and on, and on... In
> which case, a verb describing an ever enduring universe might qualify for
> 'anti-telic'. But what else?
>
> When we come to concepts of the eternity of God, of the soul etc, we are,
> as I understand it, dealing with the concept of *timelessness*, in which
> case the telic/atelic business is irrelevant.
>
>>
>> Any natlang or conlang examples of this?
>
> Indeed. I cannot see that it is possible.
>
>> (This relates to another thing mentioned by John Q quoting me at the
>> talk, about having a verb tense that denotes some sort of cyclical
>> tense - e.g. it happened in the past and will happen in the future,
>> but isn't happening right now.)
>
> Sort of like Vesuvius erupting or Yellowstone Park blowing itself apart?
> Interesting idea - but altho natlangs show interesting variety in the way
> they organize tenses, I don't know any examples of a "once did & will do
> again" tense.
>
> --
> Ray
> ==================================
> ray@carolandray.plus.com
>
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
> ==================================
> "Ein Kopf, der auf seine eigene Kosten denkt,
> wird immer Eingriffe in die Sprache thun."
> "A mind that thinks at its own expense
> will always interfere with language".
> J.G. Hamann, 1760
>