Re: Is this realistic?

En réponse à Rob Haden :


>Microsoft Encarta Online Dictionary defines "aorist" as "a verb tense used
>to express a past action in an unqualified way, without specifying whether
>that action was repeated, continuing, or completed or how long it lasted,
>found especially in classical Greek."  So it appears that I used the wrong
>term there.  I will use "punctual" instead.
Actually you were not. Microsoft is not well known for the quality of its
products, and its dictionary is not perfect either ;))) . Indeed, in
Classical Greek grammarian tradition, the unqualified past tense is called
"aorist". But this use is *specific* to Classical Greek and languages with
a similar tense system. In *general* linguistics, "aorist" means simply
"completely unspecified aspect and tense" and is usually taken as an
aspect. For instance, it is used in Turkish grammar to refer to a tense
which is best translated in English as the simple present tense when use to
refer to habitual actions or absolute truths (see
http://www2.egenet.com.tr/mastersj/turkish-verbal-factoids.html, which
makes it clear that the aorist is *not* restricted to past tense but can
refer to present or even future actions).

In any case, your change of name is probably good, although other languages
may not be like Turkish and treat the aorist as a punctual aspect (it
depends what the language considers "unspecified". In some languages, an
unspecified action has to be punctual).

Christophe Grandsire.

http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr

You need a straight mind to invent a twisted conlang.