"conceive (of)"

[Laurence Horn]

At 11:35 PM -0500 12/9/08, Alison Murie wrote:
>On Dec 9, 2008, at 9:01 PM, Laurence Horn wrote:
>
>>---------------------- Information from the mail header
>>-----------------------
>>Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
>>Poster:       Laurence Horn <laurence.horn at YALE.EDU>
>>Subject:      Re: "conceive (of)"
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>At 5:38 PM -0800 12/9/08, Arnold Zwicky wrote:
>>>On Dec 9, 2008, at 5:22 PM, Wilson Gray wrote:
>>>
>>>>---------------------- Information from the mail header
>>>>-----------------------
>>>>Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
>>>>Poster:       Wilson Gray <hwgray at GMAIL.COM>
>>>>Subject:      Re: "conceive (of)"
>>>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>My terminology may be somewhat antiquated, given that it's
>>>>grammatical
>>>>terminology from fifty years ago, itself based on English "grammar"
>>>>from possibly fifty years before then. Perhaps nummbering would be
>>>>more transparent:
>>>>
>>>>1) I act
>>>>2) I acted
>>>>3) I have acted
>>>>
>>>>But it seems to me that there was once wide variation in the
>>>>terminology and a person was forever having to translate the
>>>>terminology that he was reading or hearing into the terminology to
>>>>which he was accustomed on the basis of the example(s) provided...
>>>
>>>2) has different labels in English -- "past", "simple past",
>>>"preterite", "imperfect" -- but never, in my experience, "present
>>>perfect" (for English).
>>>
>>And I'd wager that "imperfect" is somewhat misleading here too.
>>Wouldn't that make more sense for what I guess would also be called
>>the past progressive, i.e. "I was acting"?
>>
>>LH
>~~~~~~~~~
>As I recall, that was the model we got in Latin for the imperfect: i.e.,
>Subj was verbing.
>
>OT but on definitions:  A friend, knowing we rarely observe Xmas
>except to hope
>that it will bring an end to all the noisy, ugly hype, recommended
>that we "have
>a Jewish christmas", defined as ordering in Chinese & going to a movie.
>AM
>
Now, now, we live in modern times and there's no need to stick with
the traditions of our grandparents.  Many Talmudic scholars see
nothing wrong with going out to eat Chinese and watching a video at
home.

LH

LH

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org