Perfective-Imperfective

[Patrick C. Ryan]

[ moderator re-formatted ]

 ----- Original Message -----
From: Larry Trask <larryt at cogs.susx.ac.uk>
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 1999 1:50 PM

This posting will be a partial response to Lloyd's comments of 9/14/99 and a
fuller response to Larry's comments of 9/15/99.

My comments will be addressed to points made in both postings in a
convenient order.

[LT]

"So, in place of the wide variation in terminology of 50 years ago, we now
have a near-consensus among those who have investigated aspect most
carefully.  The definition of `perfective' in my dictionary is the one now
most widely used, and I suggest that we should, for once, agree on this
definition, as a small step toward the goal of unifying our terminology -- a
goal which I trust is shared by Pat Ryan."

[PR]

I am totally in favor a rational unification of terminology.

I wonder what proof we really have --- aside from the Larry's bare assertion
--- that the definition of 'perfective' used in Larry's dictionary is "now most
widely used". It is certainly true that a number of writers on the subject of
aspect have, apparently, followed Comrie.

But I was surprised when I read R. M. W. Dixon's _The rise and fall of
languages_ (1997) to read on pp. 118-9: "Biblical Hebrew, for instance, had no
tenses, using instead grammatical marking for aspect - perfective (an action
with a temporal end, e.g. 'John sang a hymn') or imperfective (an action with
no temporal end specified, e.g. 'John sang')."

Dixon is a current, well-known linguist who, I suppose on the basis of what he
has written, cited above, does not subscribe to the Comrie definitions of
imperfective/perfective.

I think it would be advisable for Larry to realize that when he purports to
write a dictionary, he should be describing and acknowledging real current
professional usage *not* writing a catechism of definitions he and Comrie would
desire to see adopted. We are long past 1984, and, however much some might want
it, 'war' is not 'peace'.

And I certainly disagree with Larry when he says:

"Anyway, neither Pei's outdated dictionary nor general-purpose English
dictionaries like Merriam-Webster can reasonably be cited as authorities on
the present-day technical terminology of linguistics.  The use of
'perfective' cited in MW, in AHD, in the second edition of the OED, and in
other general dictionaries, is outdated and no longer in general use among
linguists."

What Larry obviously is unwilling to acknowledge is that these dictionaries, if
they are doing *their* jobs properly (does he dispute it?), are recording
*USAGE* no matter whatever Larry thinks might be the *proper* definition. I
sincerely hope that he does not succeed in imposing his and Comrie's definition
on the non-linguist and linguist readership of these dictionaries as he
threatens.  Frankly, I believe his demonstrated attitude makes him unqualified
to be an adviser on usage in dictionaries like the OED.

I also vehemently disagree with Larry when he writes:

"As for the etymology of `perfect', this is utterly irrelevant. Committing
the etymological fallacy -- insisting that words must mean what their etyma
meant -- is the most fundamental kind of error I can think of."

In its most extreme interpretation, there is some truth in this, provided
one emends the statement to 'perfective' rather than 'perfect', which we
have not been discussing. However, to neglect the etymological meaning of a
word while making a *new* assignment of meaning,  which is what Comrie did,
or to adopt it as Larry did,  is irresponsible and totally unjustified.

Let us provisionally assume that Comrie's definition of 'perfective' ("denotes
a situation viewed in its entirety, without regard to internal temporal
constituency") actually means something in English (what in God's name would an
'internal temporal constituent' be???).

If it were true that verbal notions could be "superordinate"ly divided into
those for which this definition had some meaning, and those for which it did
not, it would still be highly inappropriate to adopt the term "perfective" for
it when "perfective" had and has an established older and current (dictionaries
and Dixon) meaning established through usage which corresponds to what Trask
would like to call, *unnecessarily* introducing a new term, 'completive'
(which, of course, he did not bother to include in his dictionary).

Why not call it - if it exists at all - 'integral' (cf. Binnick) or something
else which, at least, bears a *passing*, a nodding resemblance in meaning to
its purported idea?

Having asked the question, I will attempt to answer it. Bernard Comrie has done
much valuable work over the years with which I am personally familiar. However,
in the case of his book _Aspect_, I sincerely and honestly believe he is
idiosyncratically deviant from start to finish.

His prestige, based on his previous work, has created a Pied Piper effect; and
those eager to acknowledge his past contributions have adopted his views
without sufficient critical appraisal.

I could give many examples from his book that make assertions contrary to what
specialists in the various fields assert (for example, "the Arabic Perfective,
which is a perfective relative past"; the idea that kataba/yaktubu represents a
past/present division is an idea held by *no* AAist of which I am aware; what
entitles Comrie to contradict all previous Arabists? And how likely is it that
he understands Arabic better than they do?).

I will offer only an opinion on a subject upon which I believe I am entitled to
render a completely informed judgment as Muttersprachler. Comrie informs us on
p. 28 regarding English 'used to + V', that "it is often claimed that a further
element of the meaning of these forms is that the situation described no longer
holds", which he *denies*.

I have lived in the East, West, Central and South of the United States, and
listened to video and film mass media regularly, and I am one of those who
would "often" claim that "I used to come at 7 PM" implies absolutely that "I
no longer come at 7 PM though I did in he past".

If it does not imply that to Comrie, I can only suggest that he may be a
non-native speaker of English who has never mastered its nuances; and, as such,
is unqualified to lecture those who are on the interpretation of phrases such
as "NP used to V". This is what anyone who was reasonable might have suspected
from the "it is often claimed ...". Why is it so "often" claimed if many do not
understand it as I do? And what entitles Comrie to "correct" our native
interpretations? His professorial authority?

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"). The habitual aspect in English
is purely expressed by "Lisa always smoked", "Lisa always smokes", and "Lisa
will always smoke". Larry and Comrie are both incorrect in asserting that
"English has a distinct habitual form in the past tense only". 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?

Now, those of you who are actually IEists on this list were probably
surprised to learn from Larry that "my, thy", etc. are *not* possessive
pronouns. No doubt, it would surprise Beekes (1995, not exactly the Ice
Age), who discusses IE "possessives" on pp. 210-211 of his _Comparative
Indo-European Linguistics_. But read what Larry intones ex cathedra:

 "The tradition is wrong and must be corrected."

I doubt very sincerely whether Beekes would object to considering
"possessives" a member of a larger class of words called "determiners", but
I feel certain he would, and I certainly do strenuously object to Larry
attempting to force the interpretations and terminology of the school to
which he and Comrie happen to adhere on those who prefer an alternative and
equally legitimate approach, school, and terminology. Must we all recite the
Comriean Creed to discuss linguistics? I thought that kind of blind dogma
and unthinking profession went out with Marx and the other barbarians.

Moreover, I find it deliciously laughable to contemplate that Larry or
Comrie or any of their ilk would "correct" Beekes, an eminent linguist who
employs terms so that no one needs Larry's dictionary to understand them;
and, who incidentally knows more about comparative linguistics than most of
those who would foolishly dare to "correct" him.

And on the subject of comparative linguistics, let us read what Professor
Comrie has to say about Indo-European, so that we may savor the flavor of
his genius.

Comrie informs us on p. 83 that "while the distinction between Present and
Aorist and the forms of either can be traced back to Proto-Indo-European,
the same cannot be said of the Imperfect".

IMHO, this is incorrect. The aorist without prefix [*H(1)e-, indicating past
*tense* (Beekes)], which is  *wida't (+zero-grade, +secondary) contrasts by
*one* feature only and therefore directly with the injunctive, *we'yd-t
(-zero-grade, +secondary).

However, let us try to abstract the basic thought behind Comrie's
juxtaposition of present and aorist, which typically differ in that the
prefixed aorist has zero-grade with thematic secondary endings
[*H(1)e'-wid-at] while the root present is un-prefixed, full-grade, with
athematic primary endings [*we'yd-ti].

And then Comrie informs us that: "The nature of the Imperfect, both
synchronically and diachronically, becomes clearer if one thinks *not*
(emphasis added) of Present stem versus Aorist stem, but of Imperfective
stem versus Perfective stem".

Now one could find many things to criticize in this formulation but let us
focus on what I think is the main thought here. Since the IE present stem
has normally full-grade as does the imperfect stem (non-Proto-Indo-European
though it may be, according to Comrie), differing most notably by the lack
of the past-tense-prefix in the present, I presume Comrie is identifying
full-grade verbal roots with his notion of Imperfective, zero-grade verbal
roots with his Perfective; and suggesting that, because of the past-tense
prefix of the normal aorist and imperfect, that, set in the past, these
contrast along the lines of his postulated Perfective/Imperfective.

=====================================================================
Now, here is the $64 question. As trained IE linguists, do you all believe
the contrast between zero-grade and full-grade verbal roots in IE is
*better* characterized as a contrast between Comrie's and Trask's notions of
*Perfective* and *Imperfective*, or by the contrast of momentary and
durative as has been traditional?
=====================================================================

Now, to dispose of some other red herrings. Larry wrote:

"all agree that the Russian contrast is not merely one of completion versus
non-completion, but something rather more subtle."

I have, over and over again, suggested, without communicating with Larry
apparently, that the idea of the perfective as it has been traditionally
understood, is that it identifies the logical termination of a verbal
action, e.g. 'eat up the bread'. But whether the act is portrayed as
"completed" or not, it is still perfective; e.g. 'He is eating up the bread'
describes a verbal action with a logical termination point but is also
characterized as an action with duration, i.e. it is progressive. Any verbal
action which has been completed at any time presumes a previous verbal
action of completing.

'Punctual', on the other hand, is another red herring. If one uses momentary
for an action regarded as a point in time, and durative for an action
regarded over points in time, then 'punctual' can be reserved for
characterizing actions of very short duration, like sneezing. Larry's
dictionary example of 'punctual' is misleading: "Hillary reached the summit
of Everest". What if we say "Hillary reached the summit of Everest during
the night". What constitutes the 'summit'; the last 10', the last 50', the
last 150'?

Now, Larry does recognize an important fact: "The issue is not whether an
action has an internal structure, but whether it is *linguistically presented*
as having one. We are talking about linguistic structure, not about the nature
of the non-linguistic universe."

This is half way there.

Lloyd expressed it much better, when he said: "It is crucial to carefully keep
the difference between EVENTS (as they actually are in reality) and ASPECTUAL
REFERENCES (which reflect how they are conceived by speakers). Aspectual
references are partly independent of any real-world nature of events, they are
partly free choices made by the speaker.

This is, I believe, the crux of the question, and a point of view completely
overlooked and misunderstood by Comrie though there may be hope for Larry.

Although 'sneeze' would be regarded conventionally as punctual verbal
action, it can be portrayed iteratively: "He was sneezing all the way home".
Iterative is a repetition of punctual activity over a certain period without
implying habituality. Although one could think of sneezing as telic (getting
something out of one's nose by forceful release of air), generally, it would
be understood as atelic, hence, it must be imperfective.

Now I return to my interpretation of the significance of zero-grade vs.
full-grade in IE. Regardless of whether the *event* is normally punctual
(sneeze) or non-punctual (run), the reference to it can be conceptualized as
a point, before and after which something can occur, or as points, during
which something contemporaneously occurs.

And, as a suggestion that this may be the right track, I mention Beekes
suggestion that the thematic vowel (-*e/o-) may be an indication of
definiteness. I believe the thematic vowel is most parsimoniously explained
as a result of an un-prefixed zero-grade root (CVCe'/o') contrasting with a
un-prefixed full-grade root (CeC). I think this suggests that momentary
activity is more often linked to perfective activity though the connection,
as we have seen, is not exclusive.

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)