tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8726516516656131688.post7198057448904065722..comments2009-05-28T17:27:33.073+01:00Comments on Variae Lectiones: The Myth of the Tenseless (I)Brunellushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08630207490739621242noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8726516516656131688.post-8360167260984102452009-05-28T17:27:33.073+01:002009-05-28T17:27:33.073+01:00I just spotted this. Obiicitur: If 'it always ra...I just spotted this. Obiicitur: If 'it always rains in Boston' and 'It rained in Boston two years ago' are contraries, as your example suggests, then that suggests the present tense is not as present as it looks.<br /><br />This reminds me of a nice argument I came across last week. The disjunction in 'it rains, or it has rained, or it will rain' clearly suggests that the 'rains' is to be understood as present tense.<br /><br />I am reading a lot of thirteenth century material on this. Example here:<br /><br />http://mywikibiz.com/User:Ockham/sandboxEdward Ockhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.com