Re: terminology...

From: Jonathan Robie (
Date: Thu May 08 1997 - 09:24:04 EDT

At 09:14 AM 5/8/97 -0400, Mari Broman Olsen wrote:
>*** My short answer is that if there were a short answer my thesis
>would not have been about aspect: I would have accepted the
>definitions and moved on to applying linguistic theory to machine
>translation (where I am now).

If there *is* a short answer, I wish someone would post it here with the
subject line "Aspect and Aktionsart: the short answer". ;=>

>***Jonathan Robie writes (with lots left out):
>In the traditional grammars the term 'Aktionsart' is used for a
>bewildering mixture... Linguists who see 'Aktionsart' as Mari does,
>clearly have no reason to reject the term.

I didn't write that - I think this was in a reply to something I wrote. My
current working hypothesis is that tense, lexical aspect, and grammatical
aspect are enough, and I'm trying to see if I can avoid adding Aktionsart as
a separate factor. In other words, I find what you wrote in your thesis very
helpful, and my working model is based on it. I do keep raising questions
since I'm much too much of a beginner in both Greek and linguistics to have
anything more than a working model which can be changed at any time, and I
hope to remain that kind of beginner no matter how much experience I gain.


Jonathan Robie
POET Software, 3207 Gibson Road, Durham, N.C., 27703

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:15 EDT