On 16/05/2019 10:30, And Rosta wrote:
> On Thu, 16 May 2019 at 03:55, Stewart Fraser wrote:
>> Present tense is the infinitely small slice of time occurring NOW.
> This is not so. It is indeed the time that is occurring now, but the
> temporal extent of Now is not infinitely small but rather extends
> to the boundary of Then; it's entirely analogous to the extent of
> Here,

I think this is too vague and, I suspect, both Stewart and I would not
go along with this.  I also suspect that it is a difference in the
understanding of "present" that has caused BPJ and Jörg to hold that
present time is not compatible with perfective aspect.

> By "construed holistically, wholly occurring at", I meant not
> punctual aktionsart but perfective aspect.

Yes, what I understood you to mean and not to mean.  :)

On 16/05/2019 09:26, Raymond Brown wrote:> On 16/05/2019 03:55, Stewart
Fraser wrote:
>> Now when you said “The present tense is compatible with events
>> construed holistically and as wholly occurring at the present
>> moment” I guess you must be taking about verbs with punctual
>> aktionsart here (you said “wholly occurring”). So you reckon a
>> verb such as “blink” would be compatible with present tense (2).
> I don't think And meant that, but I may be mistaken.

I wasn't mistaken.   :)

But And may be pleased to know that my fictional 17th cent. auxlang,
Outidic, does have a 'present perfective'.  We read:
while [Dr Outis] was happy with *atrekan* he wondered what the "present
aorist" (i.e. perfective) [*atrek*] might mean. It seemed to him the
'present aorist' was appropriate as a "historic present", i.e. the
present used in telling past events, e.g. "In comes Joe and says …..",
and in habitual situations where, if they were in the past, we would
just use a past aorist, e.g. "Whenever we meet them, they smile and say
'Hello' to us ..".