Re: Anti-telic?

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

Replies