List price
EUR €61.00USD $78.00
Search Results
Synchronic and diachronic perspectives
This volume gathers nine contributions dealing with Aorists and Perfects. Drinka challenges the notion of Aoristic Drift in Romance languages. Walker considers two emergent uses of the Perfect in British English. Jara seeks to determine the constraints on tense choice within narrative discourse in Peruvian Spanish. Henderson argues for a theory based on Langacker’s ‘sequential scanning’ in Chilean and Uruguayan Spanish. Delmas looks at ’Ua in Tahitian, a polysemic particle with a range of aspectual and modal meanings. Bourdin addresses the expression of anteriority with just in English. Yerastov examines the distribution of the transitive be Perfect in Canadian English. Fryd offers a panchronic study of have-less perfect constructions in English. Eide investigates counterfactual present perfects in Mainland Scandinavian dialects.
Synchronic and diachronic perspectives
This volume gathers nine contributions dealing with Aorists and Perfects. Drinka challenges the notion of Aoristic Drift in Romance languages. Walker considers two emergent uses of the Perfect in British English. Jara seeks to determine the constraints on tense choice within narrative discourse in Peruvian Spanish. Henderson argues for a theory based on Langacker’s ‘sequential scanning’ in Chilean and Uruguayan Spanish. Delmas looks at ’Ua in Tahitian, a polysemic particle with a range of aspectual and modal meanings. Bourdin addresses the expression of anteriority with just in English. Yerastov examines the distribution of the transitive be Perfect in Canadian English. Fryd offers a panchronic study of have-less perfect constructions in English. Eide investigates counterfactual present perfects in Mainland Scandinavian dialects.
En français, latin, corse, estonien et polonais
Le présent volume regroupe onze contributions centrées sur le parfait et l’aoriste dans cinq langues : Joffre expose l’ambiguïté fondamentale du passif périphrastique et des déponents latins, tandis que Dalbera propose un invariant à son parfait. Giancarli vérifie l’existence d’une corrélation entre la variation d’auxiliaire et celle du participe passé du verbe corse. Le statut de parfait de la construction polonaise avoir + participe + objet est mis en doute successivement par Nowakowska et par Sikora. Treikelder se concentre sur l’émergence du parfait estonien en contexte atypique. En français, Lindschouw & Schøsler envisagent les relations entre circonstants temporels, passé compose et passé simple ; Vetters retrace la dérive aoristique de ce dernier tandis que Apothéloz se refuse à parler d’aoriste.
This volume is a collection of eleven contributions dealing with perfect and aorist tenses in five languages: Joffre shows the fundamental ambiguity of the periphrasis of Latin passive and deponent verbs, while Dalbera proposes an invariant meaning for its perfect. Giancarli tests the hypothesis of a correlation between the variation of auxiliaries and that of past participles in Corsican. The perfect status of the Polish have + participle + object construction is questioned in turn by Nowakowska and Sikora. Treikelder focuses on the Estonian perfect in atypical contexts. Concerning French, Lindschouw & Schøsler look at the relationships between time adjuncts, passé compose and passé simple; Vetters describes the aoristic evolution of the latter, while Apothéloz explains why it should not be considered an aorist.
Contributors are: Denis Apothéloz, Joseph Dalbera, Pierre-Don Giancarli, Marie-Dominique Joffre, Jan Lindschouw, Małgorzata Nowakowska, Lene Schøsler, Dorota Sikora, Anu Treikelder, Carl Vetters.
This volume is a collection of eleven contributions dealing with perfect and aorist tenses in five languages: Joffre shows the fundamental ambiguity of the periphrasis of Latin passive and deponent verbs, while Dalbera proposes an invariant meaning for its perfect. Giancarli tests the hypothesis of a correlation between the variation of auxiliaries and that of past participles in Corsican. The perfect status of the Polish have + participle + object construction is questioned in turn by Nowakowska and Sikora. Treikelder focuses on the Estonian perfect in atypical contexts. Concerning French, Lindschouw & Schøsler look at the relationships between time adjuncts, passé compose and passé simple; Vetters describes the aoristic evolution of the latter, while Apothéloz explains why it should not be considered an aorist.
Contributors are: Denis Apothéloz, Joseph Dalbera, Pierre-Don Giancarli, Marie-Dominique Joffre, Jan Lindschouw, Małgorzata Nowakowska, Lene Schøsler, Dorota Sikora, Anu Treikelder, Carl Vetters.
En français, latin, corse, estonien et polonais
Le présent volume regroupe onze contributions centrées sur le parfait et l’aoriste dans cinq langues : Joffre expose l’ambiguïté fondamentale du passif périphrastique et des déponents latins, tandis que Dalbera propose un invariant à son parfait. Giancarli vérifie l’existence d’une corrélation entre la variation d’auxiliaire et celle du participe passé du verbe corse. Le statut de parfait de la construction polonaise avoir + participe + objet est mis en doute successivement par Nowakowska et par Sikora. Treikelder se concentre sur l’émergence du parfait estonien en contexte atypique. En français, Lindschouw & Schøsler envisagent les relations entre circonstants temporels, passé compose et passé simple ; Vetters retrace la dérive aoristique de ce dernier tandis que Apothéloz se refuse à parler d’aoriste.
This volume is a collection of eleven contributions dealing with perfect and aorist tenses in five languages: Joffre shows the fundamental ambiguity of the periphrasis of Latin passive and deponent verbs, while Dalbera proposes an invariant meaning for its perfect. Giancarli tests the hypothesis of a correlation between the variation of auxiliaries and that of past participles in Corsican. The perfect status of the Polish have + participle + object construction is questioned in turn by Nowakowska and Sikora. Treikelder focuses on the Estonian perfect in atypical contexts. Concerning French, Lindschouw & Schøsler look at the relationships between time adjuncts, passé compose and passé simple; Vetters describes the aoristic evolution of the latter, while Apothéloz explains why it should not be considered an aorist.
Contributors are: Denis Apothéloz, Joseph Dalbera, Pierre-Don Giancarli, Marie-Dominique Joffre, Jan Lindschouw, Małgorzata Nowakowska, Lene Schøsler, Dorota Sikora, Anu Treikelder, Carl Vetters.
This volume is a collection of eleven contributions dealing with perfect and aorist tenses in five languages: Joffre shows the fundamental ambiguity of the periphrasis of Latin passive and deponent verbs, while Dalbera proposes an invariant meaning for its perfect. Giancarli tests the hypothesis of a correlation between the variation of auxiliaries and that of past participles in Corsican. The perfect status of the Polish have + participle + object construction is questioned in turn by Nowakowska and Sikora. Treikelder focuses on the Estonian perfect in atypical contexts. Concerning French, Lindschouw & Schøsler look at the relationships between time adjuncts, passé compose and passé simple; Vetters describes the aoristic evolution of the latter, while Apothéloz explains why it should not be considered an aorist.
Contributors are: Denis Apothéloz, Joseph Dalbera, Pierre-Don Giancarli, Marie-Dominique Joffre, Jan Lindschouw, Małgorzata Nowakowska, Lene Schøsler, Dorota Sikora, Anu Treikelder, Carl Vetters.