Re: Rosetta Stone of Verb Aspect

From: Jonathan Robie (
Date: Thu Aug 07 1997 - 06:51:30 EDT

At 11:45 AM 8/3/97 +0000, Clayton Bartholomew wrote:
>Thanks to Jonathan for the Rosetta Stone. Looking it over, one thing
>jumps out at me. Most of the recent models seem to have relegated the
>*future* to a kind of orphan status. This gives me reason to doubt the
>general validity of these models. If you have to send a major component
>of the verb system into permanent exile to make your model work then it
>is time to go back to the drawing table and start over. This is where I
>think we are headed.

I think that it is more true to say that Olsen and Fanning see the future as
a pure tense ("only time") which does not convey aspect ("view of the event
or state"). That doesn't mean that the future is an orphan, it just means
that it is a pure tense.

>I think we are going to discover that Porter and
>Fanning are simply wrong, not about details but their basic approach is

Porter and Fanning have very different basic approaches. Proving one of them
to be "simply wrong" would not prove the other one to be wrong.


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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:24 EDT