Re: Is this realistic?

On Thu, 3 Jul 2003 00:45:05 EDT, David J. Peterson <ThatBlueCat@...>
wrote:

>Thanks!   So, in other words, it's like saying "past tense", but since
that
>one's been so gummed up by different uses, there's just aorist.   Cool.
No problem.  Yeah, I was using "aorist" to mean "punctual aspect."  Later
on in my language's internal history, the speakers began using multiple
verbal affixes to further specify meaning, and the aspect contrast went
from punctual vs. progressive to perfect vs. imperfect.

>Looks good to me.   Of course, it might be interesting to see it with your
>words, instead of mine.   ;)   Sorry I sort of forced them onto your
language.
>It just helps me to work with concrete examples.   So now that that's
>settled, is there a future tense?
>
>-Dave
No need to apologize, I'm the same way. :)  I don't see the need for a
future tense in my language.  Most (if not all) of the time, context and
time words (like "tomorrow") will indicate whether an action is occurring
in the present or in the future.

- Rob