From: Mark B. O'Brien (email@example.com)
Date: Sun Mar 16 1997 - 19:10:21 EST
Not wanting to be picky, but I did note one comment in need of
On Sat, 15 Mar 1997 23:39:22 +0000 Rolf Furuli <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>Ronald refers to the book `Aspect` by Bernard Comrie
>(1976). The same author has also written the book `Tense`
>(1985). Both are quite easy to understand. However, Comrie
>does not differentiate between aspect and Aktionsart,
>perhaps because he does not know real aspectual languages.
Actually, Comrie DOES note that there is a distinction between aspect and
Aktionsart in his *Aspect* text (cf. pp. 6-7, n. 4). He, and McKay
follows this kind of wording, describes Aktionsart as the
"lexicalisation" of aspect (although we might want to also include
grammatical and contextual influences as well).
Just thought I would point this out, since Comrie is an excellent
introductory text for those wishing to come to grips with verbal aspect
from a general linguistics point of view.
Grad. Student, Dallas Theological Seminary
Adj. Prof., Dallas Christian College
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:10 EDT