Print

Print


On Tue, 3 Jul 2001 14:35:52 +0200, Christian Thalmann <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Christophe Grandsire wrote:
>
>> It means that instead of marking absolute present, past or future, in
>> subclauses present means simultaneity, past means anteriority and future
>> means posteriority to the situation of the main clause.
>
>Ah... then I guess I've been using the term wrongly.  In Obrenje,
>relative tense means simultaneity, anteriority or posteriority with
>respect to the timeframe established by the absolute tense.  For
>example, in "he was going to do", the absolute tense is past, but the
>relative tense is posteriority.  Similarly, in "he will have done", the
>absolute tense is future, but the relative tense is anteriority.

That sounds like the same concept to me.

>As for that "Yemls" phonology, what are you talking about?  I seem to
>have missed the original post.

I hate to repost something that's in the archives, especially since I've
already started making (minor) changes. I'll try sending it (the original)
to you privately.

Jeff

>-- Christian Thalmann