This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Aorist. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:23, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
I seriously struggle with getting around the following sentence:
"Proto-Indo-European had a three-way aspectual opposition, traditionally called "present", "aorist", and "perfect", which are thought to have been, respectively, imperfective, perfective, and stative (resultant state) aspects."
I think it is unclear, and arguable. Even though it is unclear what the statement really says, I find it generally unsettling when someone states something truth-tentative about a hypothetical language. I find it also highly arguable to cathegorise aorist as a grammatical aspect alltogether. Would it not rather be more correct to state that the present and perfect, imperfective and stative are aspects of the aorist, which is per definition without aspect? -- Xactnorge ( talk) 19:53, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
I think the source should be added in the chapter about aorist in south slavic languages. Was it really ever part of the Slovenian language? Aorista ( talk) 19:18, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Domuz eti yermisiniz? to the second person unambiguously is an offer. To inquire habit or objection, we say Domuz eti yiyormusunuz? Sigara içiyormusunuz? Dmermerci~enwiki ( talk) 09:29, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Aorist. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:23, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
I seriously struggle with getting around the following sentence:
"Proto-Indo-European had a three-way aspectual opposition, traditionally called "present", "aorist", and "perfect", which are thought to have been, respectively, imperfective, perfective, and stative (resultant state) aspects."
I think it is unclear, and arguable. Even though it is unclear what the statement really says, I find it generally unsettling when someone states something truth-tentative about a hypothetical language. I find it also highly arguable to cathegorise aorist as a grammatical aspect alltogether. Would it not rather be more correct to state that the present and perfect, imperfective and stative are aspects of the aorist, which is per definition without aspect? -- Xactnorge ( talk) 19:53, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
I think the source should be added in the chapter about aorist in south slavic languages. Was it really ever part of the Slovenian language? Aorista ( talk) 19:18, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Domuz eti yermisiniz? to the second person unambiguously is an offer. To inquire habit or objection, we say Domuz eti yiyormusunuz? Sigara içiyormusunuz? Dmermerci~enwiki ( talk) 09:29, 28 July 2023 (UTC)