Comments on: Markedness, Part 3 http://www.ntdiscourse.org/2009/02/markedness-part-3/ Removing the mystery from discourse grammar Mon, 23 Jan 2012 01:31:16 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: Steve Runge http://www.ntdiscourse.org/2009/02/markedness-part-3/comment-page-1/#comment-295 Steve Runge Thu, 05 Feb 2009 02:49:39 +0000 http://www.ntdiscourse.org/?p=455#comment-295 Good call, I will try and supplement tomorrow morning. Thanks for the heads up. Pictures are always a helpful thing. Good call, I will try and supplement tomorrow morning. Thanks for the heads up. Pictures are always a helpful thing.

]]> By: Mike Aubrey http://www.ntdiscourse.org/2009/02/markedness-part-3/comment-page-1/#comment-294 Mike Aubrey Thu, 05 Feb 2009 02:47:18 +0000 http://www.ntdiscourse.org/?p=455#comment-294 A thought on clarity: Your shift from talking about the Aorist being unmarked (vs. the other inflected forms [trying to avoid the term "tenses"]) to the Historical Present being marked (vs. the not-historical-present) is potentially confusing here because you're technically talking about two different systems of markedness: #1 The Markedness System of Morphology #2 The Markedness System of Usage (Pragmatics?) I also think that charts are helpful for this, like this one: <a href="http://evepheso.wordpress.com/2008/12/27/gerhard-mussies-on-gender-pt-ii/" rel="nofollow">HERE</a> A thought on clarity:

Your shift from talking about the Aorist being unmarked (vs. the other inflected forms [trying to avoid the term "tenses"]) to the Historical Present being marked (vs. the not-historical-present) is potentially confusing here because you’re technically talking about two different systems of markedness:

#1 The Markedness System of Morphology
#2 The Markedness System of Usage (Pragmatics?)

I also think that charts are helpful for this, like this one: HERE

]]>