From: Ed Gorham (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun Sep 26 1999 - 07:58:03 EDT
In a broad sense, isn't it correct to assume that grammars in general
opeate on theory? Since we are dealing with an ancient language, isn't it
all theory? Aktionsart, now thoroughly accepted as fact, is actually a
theory, no? (I hear the evolution analogy in the background again). Wasn't
the rationalistic approach of the 19th century grammars based on a
theory(ies) of how the languauge operated? Just because aspect does not
have the advantage of longevity that these other theories do, is it to be
consigned to the aether? Aktionsart was a mere lad once.
It's all theory. So why get upset when another theory appears on the
horizon? Like any theory, it can be tested, accepted or rejected.
Or is this just my own theory?
--- B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [email@example.com] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:40 EDT