Perfective-Imperfective (2) - Habitual

[Patrick C. Ryan]

 ----- Original Message -----
From: Patrick C. Ryan <proto-language at email.msn.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 26, 1999 1:33 PM

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Larry Trask <larryt at cogs.susx.ac.uk>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 1999 11:26 AM

>> On Sat, 18 Sep 1999, Patrick C. Ryan wrote:

>>> Perhaps the situation is different in England since Larry has
>>> adopted Comrie's mistaken (IMHO) interpretation of 'habitual' by
>>> citing in his dictionary "Lisa used to smoke", which is all the more
>>> surprising since he defines it traditionally ("The aspect category
>>> which expresses an action which is regularly or consistently
>>> performed by some entity"; NOTE: not "... which **was** regularly or
>>> consistently performed").

[LT responded]
>> The `was' is not part of the definition of the habitual.  It is merely a
>> feature of English that it has a distinctive habitual form only in the
>> past tense.  Other languages differ.  For example, Spanish has a
>> habitual auxiliary <soler>, which can be used in any tense.  This is a
>> familiar headache for Spanish learners of English, who are constantly
>> trying to render their overt present habitual into English by saying
>> thinks like `Lisa uses to smoke' (intended `Lisa smokes').  Basque is
>> like Spanish, by the way: it too has an overt habitual auxiliary usable
>> in any tense.  But English doesn't.

[PR]
I can accept your statement only if you mdofiy your definition of
'habitual'.

As for soler, a Spanish expert would have to make a judgment here but I
suspect strongly that soler in the present tense can be exactly rendered by
*another* English idiom:

'to be used to V+ing', as in

'Lisa is used to smoking', which looks at habituality from its affect on the
agent.

[PR previously]
>>> The habitual aspect in English is purely expressed by "Lisa always
>>> smoked", "Lisa always smokes", and "Lisa will always smoke".

[LT responded]
>> No.

[PR inerjects]
After detailed and cross-referenced argumentation of this caliber, how can I
foolishly continue to maintain my point?

[LT continued]
>> In the present, the ordinary form is `Lisa smokes'.  In the past,
>> it can be either `Lisa used to smoke' or `Lisa smoked', depending upon
>> context.  Only the second of these three is overtly marked as a
>> habitual, but the other two forms can receive a habitual interpretation
>> -- though they need not.

>> As for `Lisa always smokes', this hardly sounds to me like native
>> English without a complement: `Lisa always smokes at parties' is fine,
>> and so is `Lisa always smokes after dinner', but ??`Lisa always smokes'
>> is not the sort of thing I often say or hear.  What earthly content does
>> it bear beyond that of `Lisa smokes'?

[PR]
In my dialect, 'Lisa smokes' means simply 'Lisa currently smokes' and might
be applied to Lisa if she smokes currently once in a very great while,
barely qualifying as 'habitual'; 'Lisa always smokes' stresses the
habituality; and I agree, it would be oftener found with a complement but
would 'Lisa always smokes now' be equally strange to your conversational
repertoire?

[PR previously]
>>> Larry and Comrie are both incorrect in asserting
>>> that "English has a distinct habitual form in the past tense only".

[LT responded]
>> Nope.  This is true.  The overt `used to' construction exists only in
>> the past.  In the non-past, the form used to express the habitual also
>> has other functions.

[PR]
Another devastating counter-argument!

[PR previously]
>>> But, Larry and Comrie will probably disagree since they apparently
>>> both believe that any connection between the meaning of 'habitual'
>>> and habitual, THE LINGUISTIC TERM, is purely coincidental. I find
>>> this absolutely incredible! What possible benefit can be gained by
>>> *re*-defining words contrary to their established meanings?

[LT responded]
>> Nobody is doing any such thing.  Once again, you are confusing
>> linguistic forms with real-world states of affairs -- a fatal error.
>> Also, or perhaps or, you are confusing linguistic terms with ordinary
>> English words -- another fatal error.

[PR interjects]
In whatever world you may care to operate, I prefer to operate in the
real-world. And since I am still here writing to you, how "fatal" an error
could this be?

[LT continued]
>> Take the case of `work', which is both an everyday word and a technical
>> term in physics.  The everyday sense is not at all equivalent to the
>> precisely defined physical sense, as any physics teacher knows (I used
>> to be one), and as every physics student must learn if he wants to get
>> anywhere.  It's the same with linguistic terms: there is no requirement
>> that our technical term `habitual' must be equivalent to the everyday
>> word `habitual', and in fact it isn't.

[PR interjects again]
Your dictionary defines 'habitual' as "The aspect category which expresses
an action which is regularly or consistently performed by some entity".  AHD
defines 'habitual' as "of the nature of a habit; done constanttly or
repeatedly". Frankly, I do not see your "linguistic" definition breaking a
new path through the forest.

[LT continued]
>> Example:

>> `Lisa smoked in those days.'

>> This has a habitual interpretation, but it does not have the form of an
>> overt habitual.

[PR]
Yes, it *may* have a habitual interpretation though 'Lisa always smoked in
those days' would make the habituality explicit.

Even 'Lisa was used to smoking in those days' would be clearer but with a
slightly different nuance.

You are conflating an ideational category with the form by which it is
expressed in a given language. 'Habituality' is *always* the same idea; only
its overt expression varies from language to language.

Pat

PATRICK C. RYAN | PROTO-LANGUAGE at email.msn.com (501) 227-9947 * 9115 W. 34th
St. Little Rock, AR 72204-4441 USA WEBPAGES: PROTO-LANGUAGE:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2803/index.html and PROTO-RELIGION:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2803/proto-religion/indexR.html "Veit
ek, at ek hekk, vindga meipi, nftr allar nmu, geiri undapr . . . a ~eim
meipi er mangi veit hvers hann af rstum renn." (Havamal 138)