5 ms·

I said "the" because you said "it conveys 'some' temporal information".

by mda 2y ago

marcellus23 2y ago
"some" and "the" are not mutually exclusive. If I say there's some cake in the kitchen, that doesn't mean it's not the only cake in the kitchen.
- mda 2y ago
  Ok i see that you are being deliberately obtuse. Because by saying some, you meant time aspect was not primary. Which is wrong. Anyway, I have put a bit more information about this tense up in the discussion.
  - marcellus23 2y ago
    > Because by saying some, you meant time aspect was not primary. No I didn't and I was not being deliberately obtuse. That's not what "some" means here. Pretend I used no word instead of "some" — it would have had the same meaning. I get the impression from your grammar that you are not a native English speaker. That's fine, but then you may not have a complete grasp on something like this.
    - mda 2y ago
      If you remove "some" and change it to mean that it is the "only" thing that conveys temporal information how does your initial argument hold? It is a tense, and all grammar books I have and see agrees that it is a tense. I am not a native speaker but I understand enough, but I get the impression that you are not a native Turkish speaker, That's fine, but then you may not have a complete grasp on something like this
      - marcellus23 2y ago
        > If you remove "some" and change it to mean that it is the "only" thing that conveys temporal information That wouldn't be changing the meaning. I'm not continuing this conversation because 1) I don't want to argue about the subtleties of English grammar with someone who is not a native speaker, and 2) I don't want to argue about linguistics with someone who doesn't know linguistics (as proven by your pointing to "grammar books" for evidence that it's a tense).
    - mda 2y ago
      (HN doesn't want me to continue with this nonsense deeper, so adding here). Just to note, it is not only grammar books, there are several papers about it as well, you could see it if you actually bothered understanding the nuances of it. So I am wondering are you an expert in linguistics and Turkic languages? Do you have a real source that supports your thesis? My guess is you are not, so indeed there is no need for further discussion.

I said "the" because you said "it conveys 'some' temporal information".

by mda 2y ago

I said "the" because you said "it conveys 'some' temporal information".

"some" and "the" are not mutually exclusive. If I say there's some cake in the kitchen, that doesn't mean it's not the only cake in the kitchen.

mda 2y ago
Ok i see that you are being deliberately obtuse. Because by saying some, you meant time aspect was not primary. Which is wrong. Anyway, I have put a bit more information about this tense up in the discussion.
- marcellus23 2y ago
  > Because by saying some, you meant time aspect was not primary. No I didn't and I was not being deliberately obtuse. That's not what "some" means here. Pretend I used no word instead of "some" — it would have had the same meaning. I get the impression from your grammar that you are not a native English speaker. That's fine, but then you may not have a complete grasp on something like this.
  - mda 2y ago
    If you remove "some" and change it to mean that it is the "only" thing that conveys temporal information how does your initial argument hold? It is a tense, and all grammar books I have and see agrees that it is a tense. I am not a native speaker but I understand enough, but I get the impression that you are not a native Turkish speaker, That's fine, but then you may not have a complete grasp on something like this
    - marcellus23 2y ago
      > If you remove "some" and change it to mean that it is the "only" thing that conveys temporal information That wouldn't be changing the meaning. I'm not continuing this conversation because 1) I don't want to argue about the subtleties of English grammar with someone who is not a native speaker, and 2) I don't want to argue about linguistics with someone who doesn't know linguistics (as proven by your pointing to "grammar books" for evidence that it's a tense).
  - mda 2y ago
    (HN doesn't want me to continue with this nonsense deeper, so adding here). Just to note, it is not only grammar books, there are several papers about it as well, you could see it if you actually bothered understanding the nuances of it. So I am wondering are you an expert in linguistics and Turkic languages? Do you have a real source that supports your thesis? My guess is you are not, so indeed there is no need for further discussion.