Print

Print


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.