Re: [tied] Re: Germanic preterite optative
>it is quite common for perfective to be unmarked,I am sure that any problem is mine, or my confusion -- or else things have
>and in languages without tense, but with aspect, the perfective
>is typically used to denote the past, at least for non-stative
>verbs. Classical Arabic is generally said to fall in this
been so redefined that the sentence "the past is never unmarked" no longer
means that past tenses are never unmarked.
It was indeed languages such as classical Arabic,or Biblical Hebrew, that I
was thinking of (which is why I refered to them). You'll also have noted
my careful wording : I said "the form which is used for the unmarked past".
I think it is only by semantic sleight-of-hand that a linguist can make
these languages have always-marked past tenses. The past is often indicated
by an adverb or some such, but it is also often not indicated, so that the
original perfective functions as an umarked past. The present is always
marked by inflection. But no doubt I have misunderstood something.
- [I was unable to get to this for a while. And I also wanted to make
some time for reading.]
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "aquila_grande" <aquila_grande@...>
>I don't think that this applies to verbs denoting state.
> I have read that in the Inuit language, an unmarked verb denotes
> preterite if there is not anything else in the sentense denoting
> another time.
To be explicit: 'past marker' applies to also states, habituals and
such. So it is a form that is used
to translate each of the following:
(1) John made a chair
(2) John walked
(3) John walked a mile every day last year.
(4) John knew that.