<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Eyckmans, Karin</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Imparfait et présent dans la complétive fran{\c c}aise et bulgare</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Съпоставително езикознание / Сопоставительное языкознание / Contrastive linguistics</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Contrastive Studies</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">съпоставителни изследвания</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1984</style></year></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">9</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">14–17</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;A number of past tenses exist in French and in Bulgarian: the Aorist, the Perfect, the Imperfect, and the Pluperfect. The paper discusses the uses of the Perfect and its alternative Present tense forms in subordinate complement clauses. In French, as in all Romance languages, these clauses demand an obligatory sequence of tenses rule, while in Bulgarian there is an open choice between the obligatory Romance rule type and the non-sequence Slavic type.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record></records></xml>