Perfective-Imperfective (2)

[Larry Trask]

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").

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.

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

No.  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'?

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

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.

> 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?

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.

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.

Example:

	`Lisa smoked in those days.'

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

Larry Trask
COGS
University of Sussex
Brighton BN1 9QH
UK

larryt at cogs.susx.ac.uk