Momentary-Durative (functionlessness)

[X99Lynx at aol.com]

[ moderator re-formatted ]

In a message dated 7/19/99 7:04:48 AM, you wrote:

<<Sometimes a difference of meaning will emerge, fixing one meaning
<<on one form and the other on the other (German Woerter and Worte, Dinger and
<<Dinge), but this does not mean that all variations must necessarily
<<correspond to a difference in function.    Language simply doesn't work that
<<way, and there are far too many counter-examples for that claim to stand.

<<Counter examples in English:
<<(a) strong versus weak past tenses, e.g. dived ~ dove (origin historical /
<<analogical)
<<(b) plural /s/ versus plural /z/ (origin phonetic)
<<(c) gentive versus preposition e.g. Tom's ~ of Tom (basis stylistic)
<<(d) Time expressions (believe it or not, 10:45 really is the same as a
<<quarter to eleven)
<<and so on.

<<I see the development of a functional difference as a later phenomenon,>>

Just want to point out that every single one of the examples given IS
functional:
<<(a) strong versus weak past tenses, e.g. dived ~ dove (origin historical /
<<analogical)>>

 Historical continuity promotes predictability, and expectations
in listeners.  Analogy generalizes rules, promoting structural symmetry,
retention and again predictability for the sake of listeners.

<<(b) plural /s/ versus plural /z/ (origin phonetic)>>

  If by phonetic, you
mean dependent on the preceding phonemes, then that is functional. (/boys/
versus /boyz/) I don't think you mean that clearly articulated /s/ and /z/
are randomly interchangeable without consequence to the listener.

<<(c) gentive versus preposition e.g. Tom's ~ of Tom (basis stylistic)>>

  The
use of one or the other can materially affect sense and communicative effect.
 "Tom's dog bit the mailman." v. "The dog of Tom bit the mailman."  In
American English, the 'style' makes one version common, the other very rare
indeed.  They are not interchangeable and there is an obvious functional
difference between them.

<<(d) Time expressions (believe it or not, 10:45 really is the same as a
quarter to eleven)>>

  Numerics obviously have a functional advantage in many
situations, particularly tv listings and flight schedules, etc..  At the
airport, you will not find departures listed under "three quarters to
eleven."  Or even "quarter to eleven," for that matter.  Precison is one
functional difference.

Granted that the
aorist-imperfective/perfective-imperfective/momentary-durative-narrative,
etc., distinctions may not be the only way to explain the structural
differences that arose at any point pre- and post- Anatolian.  But to say
that those structural features had no functions at all is perhaps going too
far - especially because one can only guess what those functions were in a
real world language.

How would you explain, for example, why in American English, "Tom's dog bit
the man" is expected, normal and sounds right.  But "The dog of Tom bit the
man" is clearly odd and rarely used?  There is a functional difference
between using one form or the other.  If you don't think so, try talking the
odd way and see what kind of reaction you get from your listeners

Regards,
Steve Long