tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jun 12 19:37:04 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Online Lexicon of Linguistic Terminology
William H. Martin wrote:
> Also note that Holtej's repeated reference to infinitives not
> having reference to tense seems odd, since I would think that
> "to have given" was an infinitive form. I'm sure there is
> simply something that I don't understand.
"To have given" is (loosely) an infinitive form and is, in fact, neutral as to
tense. Non-time-neutral forms would be "had given", "has given", "will have
given". (What "to have given" is *not* neutral as to aspect, a distinction which
should be familiar to this group).
I only said "loosely" because the term "infinitive" is normally applied only to
simple verbs, not compound ones. Strictly speaking, I'm not sure it makes sense
to speak of "to have given" as an infinitive, only of "to have" as an infinitive,
followed by a past participle . . .
> charghwI'
>
> According to Holtej:
> >
> >
> > > I've found a useful online glossary of linguistic terms. It will no doubt
> > > help some of us here to understand the discussions when they get too
> > > technical for the layman. The BGs may want to bookmark this.
> > >
> > > http://helpdesk.rus.uni-stuttgart.de/~rustless/ling/
> >
> > Wow. I've just had a look. This will undoubtedly be useful for *me*, but I
> > think it's not general enough to be of great use here. For instance, there
> > are tons of entries on ideas from Chomskian syntax, but no general entries
> > on "verbs."
> >
> > The Summer Institute of Linguistics maintains a more general glossary of
> > linguistic terms. http://gopher.sil.org/glossary/
> >
> > > Qu'vaD lI' net tu'bej.
> > >
> > > Voragh
> >
> > --Holtej
> >
> >