Note: This section is available in the preview here if you haven't got a copy of Rijksbaron yet:
http://books.google.com/books?id=ELh-Uiq-1KYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=rijksbaron+greek&hl=en&sa=X&ei=eUTRT-TtOajc2QWKiv2HDw&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=rijksbaron%20greek&f=false
I'm not sure whether to read this as:
+/- stative: the verb describes an ongoing state of affairs with no endpoint
+/- telic: the verb has an inherent end-point
Or simply as:
+/- telic: the verb has an inherent end-point
He gives examples in 6.2.2 and 6.3.2.
In his note, he gives a nod to Fanning, and says that he has created a similar typology of verb meanings in Rijksbaron (1989).
I was expecting more in this section, and I'm not certain which approach he is taking to lexical aspect. How do you read him?
