 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Aorist. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120315164610/http://www.maticasrpska.org.rs/casopisi/slavistiku_71-72.pdf to http://www.maticasrpska.org.rs/casopisi/slavistiku_71-72.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:23, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Please clarify the "three-way aspectual opposition"!
editI seriously struggle with getting around the following sentence:
"Proto-Indo-European had a three-way aspectual opposition, traditionally called "present", "aorist", and "perfect", which are thought to have been, respectively, imperfective, perfective, and stative (resultant state) aspects."
I think it is unclear, and arguable. Even though it is unclear what the statement really says, I find it generally unsettling when someone states something truth-tentative about a hypothetical language. I find it also highly arguable to cathegorise aorist as a grammatical aspect alltogether. Would it not rather be more correct to state that the present and perfect, imperfective and stative are aspects of the aorist, which is per definition without aspect? --Xactnorge (talk) 19:53, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
- Huh, the aorist is, as far as I am aware, perfective, so it has an aspect. What leads you to say it does not have aspect? — Eru·tuon 20:21, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Aorist in Slovenian language
editI think the source should be added in the chapter about aorist in south slavic languages. Was it really ever part of the Slovenian language? Aorista (talk) 19:18, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Aorist in Turkish
editDomuz eti yermisiniz? to the second person unambiguously is an offer. To inquire habit or objection, we say Domuz eti yiyormusunuz? Sigara içiyormusunuz? Dmermerci~enwiki (talk) 09:29, 28 July 2023 (UTC)