Talk:Resultative

Traditional view
The "Therefore" is not a therefore. At best, it could be an Accordingly, one might expect... 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:F1C1:1B24:FADF:AC92 (talk) 08:55, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

unclear statement
"This emphasizes that the resultative describes how a state was acted upon. Therefore, it must use the passive form. However, this analysis (by whom?) does not account for phrases such as "I turned this offer down", which uses the active rather than the passive voice." But, why should it 'have' to be in the passive voice? Stjohn1970 (talk) 20:44, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

The Guillaumean approach
This section is incomplete. You mention only one aspect.

Hirtle addresses** the psychomechanics of language (G. Guillaume), essentially a theory of the importance of the role of lexis. (Both Sausure and Guillaume agreed that the sentence does not pertain to language, but to speech.)

Hirtle mentions (1) notions of ‘universe time’* (time that contains the event) and (2) ‘event time’ (time contained within the event). <— The second aspect is not stated in this article.

According to Hirtle, (ditto other linguists) English has only two tenses: the Past and the Non-Past.

printed in “Lingua 39” (1976) by North-Holland Publ. Co.


 * I call these ‘existentialism’ and ‘temporality’ respectively.

Les Presses de l'Universite Laval, Québec (1975) Stjohn1970 (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hirtle, W.H. Time, Aspect and the Verb