Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Monday, December 21, 2009
Friday, December 18, 2009
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Monday, December 14, 2009
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
the semantics of the Greek perfect. Linguistics, 42-2:387–418) make some points which strengthen the case for an inherent relationship between the "perfect" and telicity/perfectivity. Haug notes that the Greek perfect refers to a state obtaining from the culmination of an action—culmination typically being expressed with the aorist. Haug writes:
This can be seen readily with the verb thnēskein (to be dying, M.W.): in principle, the imperfective could be used of a dying person who nevertheless survived. If the aorist is used, however, the person died irrevocably. And the perfect, of course, refers to
the state resulting from this culminated event expressed by the aorist. It does not mean ‘having had a near-death experience.’
Haug then goes on to discuss the semantic contrast between the PDE perfect (refers to a so-called resultant state) and the Greek perfect (refers to a so-called target state) and the way the perfect morphology interacts with atelic and stative VPs.
Another point in favor of the semantic connection between telicity/perfectivity and the "perfect" is the observation made by Madhav Deshpande (1992. Justification for verb-root suppletion in Sanskrit. Historische Sprachforschung 105:18–49) that when a Sanskrit verb has suppletive imperfective and perfective stems the "perfect", if it exists, is typically formed from the perfective allomorph.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Monday, November 30, 2009
Friday, November 13, 2009
There is no way to tell on metrical grounds whether the syllable division was scul.ptus or sculp.tus since the first syllable would be closed either way. However, since pt does not occur word-initially in Latin, it was probably not a possible onset. Hence sculp.tus is a more likely syllable division. Similarly, one would divide sānctus ‘sacrosanct’ as sānc.tus, but spectrum ‘mirror’ and antrum ‘cave’ as spec.trum and an.trum.
The idea that those consonant clusters not permitted in initial position must be treated heterosyllabically in medial position goes back to antiquity. For example in An. Ox. IV 332 we read:
ὅσα σύμφωνα μὴ δύναται ἐν ἀρχῇ λέξεων ἐκφωνεῖσθαι, ταῦτα καὶ ἐν μέσῃ λέξει εὑρεθέντα χωρισθήσεται ἀλλήλων. (attributed to Herodian's Περὶ συντάξεως τῶν στοιχείων, Lentz (1870), p. 396, 1-2)
Such consonants as are unable to be pronounced at the beginning of a word are to be
But, as a matter of fact, it's not clear that a necessary inference about the behavior of medial clusters can be drawn from the behavior or inventory of initial clusters. For example—as I learned from Adam Cooper of Cornell—Klamath, a Native American language spoken in Southern Oregon, has a wide variety of initial clusters but always splits medial CC clusters. But what about the other situation? Is it possible for a language to allow a richer set of medial onsets than initial onsets? In other words, does any language not permit e.g. initial kt but syllabify medial kt as an onset? This too is alleged to occur, but I haven't tracked down a case yet. In any event, the upshot is that we simply cannot be certain about the syllable boundaries in cases like sanctus and scultpus.