Imperfective and simple present distinction

[Eitan Grossman]

In Coptic, there is a distinction between a concrete, actually present-tense
referred construction and a 'general present' (or atemporal, really)
construction, usually called 'aorist' in grammars after Koschmieder's use of
the term. Examples of both can readily be found in Bentley Layton's Coptic
Grammar (Harrassowitz 2004).
Interestingly, in Late Egyptian, it seems that the form that *appears* to be
progressive in terms of its structure (i.e., a converb predicate) is
non-specified for this opposition in the affirmative, while a distinction is
made between 'general' and 'concrete' present in the negative. What may
supply the affirmative with such a categorial opposition is a deictic
(mostly locative) adverb slotted immediately before the converbal predicate.

If this is at all helpful, I would be happy to post references.

Best,
Eitan

On 6/26/08, Östen Dahl <oesten at ling.su.se> wrote:
>
> Before the discussion storm breaks out - didn't we have exactly this issue
> on LINGTYP already? On Jan. 19, Kazuha asked:
>
> "I am looking for a language which has both plain present tense form and
> distinctively marked imperfective aspect form (not progressive).  All the
> languages I know seem to either use imperfective only in the past
> tense(Romance, for example) or mark imperfective in the present tense but
> do
> not have a separate plain present tense form (Slavic, for example)."
>
> ...and here it was explicit that progressives were not relevant, so that
> would answer Nicholas' examples.
>
> - Östen
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Discussion List for ALT [mailto:LINGTYP at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG]
> > On Behalf Of Nicholas Ostler
> > Sent: den 26 juni 2008 10:48
> > To: LINGTYP at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG
> > Subject: Re: Imperfective and simple present distinction
> >
> > Well, how about Japanese?
> > iku 'go' itte iru 'be going, be gone'
> > siru 'get to know' sitte iru 'be aware, know'
> >
> > Or English
> > 'I go' 'I'm going' (both of which have potentially present and future
> > time reference)
> > or the southern Romance languages
> > Spanish:  'voy' 'estoy andando'
> > Italian: 'vado' 'sono andando'
> >
> > The verb 'to be' makes this distinction in Hindi, athough not other
> > (lexical)
> >  verbs:
> > wo di:va:na: hai 'he is mad' (i.e. 'is now')
> > pya:r di:va:na: ho:ta hai 'love is mad' (i.e. 'is generally')
> >
> > Sorry these examples are so 'close to home'. I presume this phenomenon
> > is pretty universal.
> >
> > In all these languages at least, the distinction is just as available in
> > the past.
> >
> > Nicholas Ostler
> >
> > Kazuha Watanabe wrote:
> > > Dear all,
> > >
> > >   I am looking for a language which distinguish imperfective and simple
> > > present (in present tense or non-past tense).  I am especially
> > > interested in distinction in stative situations (such as 'I am tall' or
> > > I know the man') It seems that this sort of distinction is more common
> > > in past tense (i.e., past imperfective vs. plain past tense
> form/general
> > > past tense), but not so common in present tense (or non-past)
> > >
> > >   Thank you for your help!
> > >
> > > Kazuha Watanabe
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Nicholas Ostler
> > Chairman, Foundation for Endangered Languages
> > Registered Charity: England & Wales 1070616
> > 172 Bailbrook Lane, Bath BA1 7AA, England
> > Phone: +44 (0)1225-852865 Mobile: (0)7720-889319
> > www.ogmios.org
> > nostler at chibcha.demon.co.uk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20080626/2403a436/attachment.htm>