Terminology (was: Re: iteratives)
delancey at DARKWING.UOREGON.EDU
Sun Aug 24 18:07:07 UTC 2003
On Mon, 18 Aug 2003, Martin Haspelmath wrote:
> My conclusion from this state of affairs is that the term "iteratives"
> should not be used at all -- once a term has been widely and prominently
> used in two different senses, it is usually better to give it up and use
> alternatives (e.g. just "pluractional" and "repetitive").
I'm afraid that if we were to adopt this suggestion we'd have absolutely
no linguistic terminology left to use. Now, it wouldn't be a bad idea
for the field to start over and try to create a generally-accepted
(hah!) terminology, the way chemists do, but failing that I don't see
how we could manage if we simply discard every term that's commonly
used in more than one incompatible sense.
Department of Linguistics
1290 University of Oregon
Eugene, OR 97403-1290, USA
delancey at darkwing.uoregon.edu
More information about the Lingtyp