Thread:User talk:CodeCat/Perfective and imperfectie forms/reply (14)

You can't exactly disqualify my argument based on my unwillingness or lack of initiative to clean up all similar cases. That's a fallacy in itself.

The distribution isn't really a very objective criterium either. It can even be dialect-specific for all we know. How do we know whether someone who comes along sometime in the future will not "grasp" your reasoning and decide to apply different criteria, whichever they think makes sense? If the requirements for an entry to appear in the category are so arcane that others can't recover it, then the category is just not well-defined enough to exist. That's why I proposed an etymological basis, that's more objective. And it's no less "subordinate" than your own proposal is, or at the very least no less asymmetrical.

But here again it seems like you're accidentally shooting your own argument in the foot. If the perfective/imperfective distinction is not just binary, but more detailed and subtle, like you say, then that's a very strong argument against using, because that would be just as much a simplification of reality. Such subtle details would need a proper definition to describe them, not just a form-of template. So really, here's what I see: Either way, the categories don't seem to have much use beyond your own personal interest.
 * If the distinction is binary, and the derivational relationship is either secondary or unrecoverable, then your two templates would be ok. But it would be arbitrary which verb it's placed on, and any category it adds would likewise be arbitrary and only useful for statistical purposes or as a curiosity (your own, it seems).
 * If the distinction is not binary, but has various shades of meaning that might not be clear from just the "imperfective" or "perfective" label, then your templates would not be an accurate representation of reality and should be replaced with proper definitions which can show all the nuances.