Re: Perfect mood
- From: "Stefano MAC:GREGOR" <esperantujo@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 20:33:37 -0800 (PST)
On Nov 29, 5:03 am, Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.removet...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
As far as I know, it's the *correct* terminology for modern Hebrew. In
what way in modern Hebrew is "hu lamad" not past tense and in what way
is "hu yilmad" not future tense? The form in "hu lomed" is by origin a
participle and continues to be used as such, but in its use in "hu
lomed" in what sense is it not functioning as a present tense?
In so sense. The "hu lomad" describes something that happened in the
past, so calling it "past tense" is perfectly valid. The same for the
other tenses. It's not the *correct* terminology, any more than the
classical terminology is *correct*. It is *useful*, and that is the
point.
Someone may some day find my "seven-voices" description useful, but I
won't hold my breath.
--
Stefano
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Perfect mood
- From: Helmut Richter
- Re: Perfect mood
- References:
- Perfect mood
- From: benlizro@xxxxxxxxxx
- Re: Perfect mood
- From: Stefano MAC:GREGOR
- Re: Perfect mood
- From: Harlan Messinger
- Perfect mood
- Prev by Date: Re: Waradpande seems to have destroyed PIE already
- Next by Date: Re: Waradpande seems to have destroyed PIE already
- Previous by thread: Re: Perfect mood
- Next by thread: Re: Perfect mood
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
