On Thu, 16 May 2019, 14:33 Raymond Brown, <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > On 16/05/2019 10:30, And Rosta wrote: > > On Thu, 16 May 2019 at 03:55, Stewart Fraser wrote: > [snip] > > > >> 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. > Okay -- philosophically a definition of the present moment as punctual, as the edge of the actual, makes sense. And if that were the meaning of a language's Present Tense Construction then it would indeed be incompatible with perfectivity (except under extraordinary circumstances where a punctual event exactly coincides with the punctual present). But I mean to define Semantic Present Tense as "the meaning of the (indicative) Present Tense Construction"; and in English (and I've no reason to believe English is special in this regard), the meaning of present and past indicative is "located at/away from the leading edge of actuality". The notion of being at a place, even a punctual place such as a set of coordinates, is latitudinous enough that the locatum is not punctual; a mere sufficient degree of propinquity is enough for non-point X to be at point Y. So yes, there is probably a difference of definitions; but it strikes me that the definition I'm working with is fitter for "semantic present tense", while the definition others have proferred is fitter for "the present moment" or suchlike. --And.