Aspect in Ancient Greek - Nijmegen Centre for Semantics

More documents

Recommendations

Info

68 Chapter 3. Aspect in formal semanticsMoens & Steedman de Swart Eggstative stative stative stative John be in the pubnon-stativeunbounded process process John runprocessnon-punctualJohn play the sonataatelicintergressivepunctual pointJohn coughboundedeventnon-punctual culminated process John go to the pubtelicchangepunctual culminationJohn arriveTable 3.3: Aspectual classifications
3.3 Aspectual coercion 69bials ((88a) and (88b)), but don’t go with the progressive on a literal reading((89a) and (89b)). Other predicates, for example process predicates (like Johnrun), exhibit the opposite behaviour ((88c) versus (89c)).(88) a. John was in the pub at ten.b. John coughed at ten.c. #John ran at ten.(89) a. *John was being in the pub.b. #John was coughing.c. John was running.Example (88c) makes no sense on a literal reading, only on an ingressive reinterpretation,that is the interpretation that John started running at ten. Likewise,(89b) makes sense only on an iterative reinterpretation. (89a) cannot bereinterpreted and is simply unacceptable.Stative and punctual predicates behave differently on the compatibilitywith the simple present tense, as (90) illustrates.(90) a. John is in the pub.b. #John coughs.Example (90a) is fine on a literal interpretation, but (90b), and non-stativepredicates in general, must undergo a habitual reinterpretation.For- and in-adverbials distinguish between bounded and unbounded predicates.Bounded predicates are fine with in-adverbials on a literal reading,but not with for-adverbials. For unbounded predicates, the reverse situationholds.(91) a. John ran for an hour.b. #John played the sonata for an hour.(92) a. #John ran in one hour.b. John played the sonata in an hour.(91b) must undergo reinterpretation since the bounded predicate John play thesonata combines with a for-adverbial. There a two options: a progressive or aniterative reinterpretation. I will come back to this example in the next section.(92a), where the unbounded John run combines with an in-adverbial, makessense only if world knowledge supports the reinterpretation of the unboundedpredicate as a bounded predicate (run a specific distance), for example, if weknow that John runs a particular distance every day.The perfect is sensitive to telicity. Only telic predicates combine happilywith the perfect. (93a) is in need of reinterpretation, whereas (93b) is fine: 3232 Moens and Steedman would claim that (93b) involves reinterpretation, too, since in
Page 3:
Aspect in Ancient GreekA semantic a
Page 6 and 7:
viNick Asher, David Beaver, the lat
Page 9:
Contentsix8 Conclusions and discuss
Page 12 and 13:
2 Chapter 1. Introductiongroundbrea
Page 14 and 15:
4 Chapter 1. Introduction(4) µετ
Page 16 and 17:
6 Chapter 1. Introductionimperfecti
Page 19 and 20:
1.3 Organisation of the thesis 9In
Page 21 and 22:
Chapter 2The interpretations of aor
Page 23 and 24:
2.3 Additional interpretations of t
Page 25 and 26:
2.3 Additional interpretations of t
Page 27 and 28: 2.4 Additional interpretations of t
Page 29 and 30: 2.4 Additional interpretations of t
Page 31: 2.5 The challenge 21scriptions of h
Page 34 and 35: 24 Chapter 3. Aspect in formal sema
Page 52: 42 Chapter 3. Aspect in formal sema
Page 57 and 58: 3.2 The perfective-imperfective dis
Page 77: 3.3 Aspectual coercion 673.3.1 Aspe
Page 81 and 82: 3.3 Aspectual coercion 71the term c
Page 83 and 84: 3.3 Aspectual coercion 73in the ext
Page 86 and 87: 76 Chapter 4. An analysis of aorist
Page 110 and 111: 100 Chapter 4. An analysis of aoris
Page 128 and 129:
118 Chapter 4. An analysis of aoris
Page 130 and 131:
120 Chapter 4. An analysis of aoris
Page 132 and 133:
122 Chapter 5. Aspect and performat
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
134 Chapter 6. The temporal structu
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
158 Chapter 7. Comparison to theori
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
172 Chapter 8. Conclusions and disc
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
178 Appendix A: The language of Com
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
192 Appendix B: Examples spelled ou
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
206 Appendix C: List of abbreviatio
Page 218 and 219:
208 Appendix C: List of abbreviatio
Page 220 and 221:
210 References(Eds.), Cross-linguis
Page 222 and 223:
212 ReferencesGrice, P. (1975). Log
Page 224 and 225:
214 ReferencesLemmon, E. J. (1962).
Page 226 and 227:
216 Referencesvan der Sandt, R. (19
Page 228 and 229:
218 References
Page 230 and 231:
220 Samenvatting (Summary in Dutch)
Page 232 and 233:
222 Samenvatting (Summary in Dutch)
show all

Aspect in Ancient Greek - Nijmegen Centre for Semantics

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?