Mesaĝoj: 59
Lingvo: English
Chainy (Montri la profilon) 2010-aprilo-24 15:01:13
And the Wikipedia site on Telicity rambles on about this and that - it seems to mean perfective and imperfective, but then not entirely, something that is either quantized or cumulative. Oh dear, it makes you love the good old traditional grammar terminology.
I just don't have the patience to get into it further. Ok, fair enough, if some people feel happy saying 'I saw him running into the house, but he didn't go into the house as he fell over before he got there', then fair enough. Obviously, we can all understand that in the end, one way or another. I'm certainly not underestimating anyone's intelligence! I would just suggest that there's a better way of saying it. And it seems to me the other ways are more natural for the average speaker.... (whether in English, or Esperanto). Sorry, I can't give you any 'evidence' on this but then I'm not trying to write a scientific report on the matter either!
- and on the matter of 'evidence', just what kind of 'evidence' have you provided, tommjames?! 
Miland (Montri la profilon) 2010-aprilo-24 15:14:04
On the other hand, in a murder trial a witness who saw an accused man pick up a weapon but not use it on the victim could be in big trouble if they said that they saw the accused commit murder with the weapon. Accurate description would be a grave matter in the second situation.
Chainy (Montri la profilon) 2010-aprilo-24 15:25:17
Krifka defines telic expressions as ones that are quantized. Atelic ones can be defined in terms of cumulative reference.And then,
Cumulativity can also be used in the characterization of mass nouns, and in the characterization of the contrast between prepositions like "to" and "towards," i.e. "towards" has cumulative reference to (sets of) paths, while "to" does not.So, 'towards' has a cumulative reference (as seen in the atelic sense), but 'to' does not. This is probably why I prefer the use of 'I saw him running towards the house' when used in the atelic sense. "Into" seems to give a more telic meaning, in a similar way to the preposition 'to'.
There you are. Some dreadfully boring evidence.
Chainy (Montri la profilon) 2010-aprilo-24 15:41:20
Miland:If a mother sees a boy running back to their house to get his coat which he forgot, and turns away before he goes through the door and says 'He ran into the house to get his coat', she won't be taken to task for not observing the actual event.I agree with that, and I gave a similar example above. It's just that when you add an extra clause to the sentence difining what later happened then it changes things.
It sounds strange to say "He ran into the house to get his coat, but he didn't get there because he fell over on the way"!! (In this case, the speaker knows the full story) To please those that like terms such as 'telicity', you can say that the use of the past simple here is a clear example of the telic sense, so that can explain why it makes no sense...
It sounds strange to say "He was running into the house but he didn't enter the house because he fell over on his way". After looking at the Wikipedia site, it seems to be the use of 'into' which gives it a more telic sense, whereas 'towards the house' could be clearly understood as atelic.
tommjames (Montri la profilon) 2010-aprilo-24 15:41:45
Chainy:I would just suggest that there's a better way of saying it.No argument from me there. As it happens I agree that your suggestion of "running toward" would generally be better way of putting it.
Chainy:just what kind of 'evidence' have you provided, tommjames?!I guess you got me there
As Miland points out, this sort of thing depends on the specifics of the situation we are describing as well as its context. I could go hunting for examples of this sort of thing in normal usage, but as with you, patience is wearing thin.
tommjames (Montri la profilon) 2010-aprilo-24 15:48:51
It sounds strange to say "He ran into the house to get his coat, but he didn't get there because he fell over on the way"!!That's because in this case you're speaking of the action itself in the indicative, rather than describing the thing you saw. There is a difference between "he ran" and "I saw him running". You're comparing apples and oranges.
Chainy (Montri la profilon) 2010-aprilo-24 15:57:16
tommjames:I was making no comparison there, just responding to an example given. And if you read the whole post, you will see that I agree with you.It sounds strange to say "He ran into the house to get his coat, but he didn't get there because he fell over on the way"!!That's because in this case you're speaking of the action itself in the indicative, rather than describing the thing you saw. There is a difference between "he ran" and "I saw him running". You're comparing apples and oranges.
tommjames (Montri la profilon) 2010-aprilo-24 16:05:12
Chainy:I was making no comparison there, just responding to an example given. And if you read the whole post, you will see that I agree with you.
Yes I see now. Chainy (Montri la profilon) 2010-aprilo-24 16:07:55
I would recommend ignoring my post about any 'evidence' based on what is my rather sketchy understanding of telicity. As I was saying, I don't think many people really know much about this linguistic concept, and I would certainly include myself in that! I'd never heard of it until today.Ultimately, I'd rather stick to simple ideas and a feel for the language.
Apologies for taking us all away from the main topic of the thread! I just couldn't help myself but comment on something that seemed a bit odd to me when reading the article by Ken Miner!