julien eychenne wrote:
> Well, I don't get it. I am wondering how we could consider pronoun +
> auxiliary as tensed nouns, even  if I try hard.

Well, the contractions can attach to nouns, too: "John's coming",
"John'll come", altho, not *"John'd come" or *"The men're coming", at
least not now.

> Tensed nouns are
> supposed to bear in themselves a tense value, such as nawatl |in
> tlānamaka-k| is 'the one who sold' > "the seller". But pronouns in that
> case don't bear this value intrinsecally (we don't have |I'll| =
> *"future me" or something like that) but it just supports the value of
> the tensed verb. So it seems that these are two different things.

Well, perhaps, but what would you suggest calling it then?  It's tense
that's marked on nouns.  I'd certainly call it "noun tense" or maybe if
I wanted to be more exact "noun-marked tense" or something like that.

"There's no such thing as 'cool'.  Everyone's just a big dork or nerd,
you just have to find people who are dorky the same way you are." -
ICQ: 18656696
AIM Screen-Name: NikTaylor42