Re: Aspect revisited
|From:||Sally Caves <scaves@...>|
|Date:||Monday, November 16, 1998, 5:41|
On Sun, 15 Nov 1998, Gerald Koenig wrote:
Hi there, Jerry--
> If it is fair to rephrase it as "he (has/had) stopped (his) running",
> it would meet the condition for a perfective: the use of a form of
> "have". If I diagram it in Vector Time Tense it comes out as a
> perfective if the time of stopping is known or definite (constant, ke
> or j); and as an imperfect if the time of stopping is unknown
> (variable, zu) and was allowed to slide along the timeline to finish
> at an unknown moment. "Imperfect does not connote completeness of
> action at any specific time"- JBO.
> It seems like an ambiguous tense.
Yes, and I think that NGL could go a long way towards setting up a
connection that English doesn't have, sort of like my "under-cooking"
which can be both passive completed and passive progressive.
> And yet I'm still not sure if I am correct in this.
In the English-language-logic that dominates my brain and my conlanging,
I would say that there's quite a bit of difference between saying "I
stopped running" and "I have run." In ENGLISH, at any rate, these
two constructions mean entirely different things and would require
differentiation as well, perhaps, in a conlang.
Li fetil'aiba, dam hoja-le uen.
volwin ly, vul inua aiba bronib.
This leaf, the wind takes her.
She's old, and born this year.