Liberation philology: the non-indexed perfective and the alienation of 'for'

These claims argue that English lacks a non-indexed perfective, tracing the aorist's loss through Latin administration, the Norman ledger and enclosure, and that English 'for' fuses function with intent through Anglo-Norman and Latin calques and the 1540s 'for all intents and purposes'. The Missing Aspect sets out a diagnostic battery (translation variance, hedging, AI systems adding temporal indexing) as predictions not yet run, and forecasts that the form is seeded into the language through use. The Prepositional Alienation proposes a dictionary of frictions, reads Thucydides' prophasis against aitiai, and names itself the founding document of liberation philology. Traversal logs read AI summarizers' default intent attribution as this grammatical gap at work.

Each claim below is registered at the earliest deposit that states it, and quoted verbatim from the deposit text, with every later statement, its dated revisions, and the later records that claim it came true or failed. The claims are the deposits' own; this page records them and does not judge them.