> > > Actually, there would be no way for it to be unbroken. You hit the button, all time stops, there would be no way to hit the "Restart time" button. Also, speaking of going back in time, it would be impossible. Because, say, you go back in time to save yourself from some tragedy (Maybe you get in a car accident when you were young or something). You go back in time, save yourself, fine and dandy. You go back to your time, but the past you that needed to go back in time to save yourself won't, because they were never in the car accident. Therefore, the car accident would happen, so they would need to go back in time, but then they solve it, so the car accident didn't happen, so they don't need to go back in time, but then they don't go back in time and the car accident happens, and on and on. Now, if you went back in time and just looked around, that might work.
> >
> > You have no idea how much I love reading these threads. Watching as people try their best to make sense of their past, future and past-future-present-conditionally-inflective-subjunctive tenses (and getting extraordinarily confused) is so much fun. By the way, it is also amazingly confusing trying to read them. I love that too much.
> >
> > Phil-"Warm fuzzy confused feeling - or is that just tiredness?"-bee
>
> I'm wondering if it harder or easier to explain in another language, where tenses are more rigid?
> sam"anyone?"hael

Hm. I'm studying Attic Greek (talk about your rigid tenses!) and I'm thinking it would be easier. Because the time/aspect of a verb is expressed in just one word (as opposed to having to use words like 'have' and 'would'), it would be clearer. Yeah. I could think about it further, and in fact I almost certainly will over the next several days, whether I want to or not.

Lire"posted this just to show off the fact that she studies Greek? You decide"lyn