> The perfect tense as stative:
> What I want to know is, how certain are linguists generally that this
> is the case? Isn't it the case that in all the attested IE languages
> the descendant of the IE stative (as Sihler calls it) is actually a
> past tense, whether indicating completed action or simple past time?
Not entirely. The Hittite -hi verbs are probably derived from the perfect
forms,
but they parallel the -mi verbs in showing both past and non-past tenses.
In Homer (as Sihler says on the page after the one you refer to)
the perfect indicates the state of the subject. This is also common in the
Rgveda.
There are also perfect formations with present meaning in several languages.
It is also worth noting that it was the primary endings (i.e. non-past), not
the
secondary, that were used in the development of wider forms of the perfect.
This suggests the perfect was not seen as a past tense.
Baldi says something helpful: "In the earliest language, it is likely that
tense was not a grammatical category; temporal relations were
marked by particles and adverbs." (Intro to IE langs p20)
> And some verbs that denote a state or condition
> (i.e. "sit", "lie", "be") Sihler says did not have stative forms.
> Does this suggest that what he terms "stative" endings perhaps were
> not primarily used to indicate a state or condition?
Other languages that have statives, like Hebrew (I cannot speak
for the Slavic langauges) have a good number of verbs which might
seem to describe states, but are not stative in form. They could also
have verbs stative in form, which don't seem to describe states.
This is a natural development, and doesn't negate the original
system or the original distinction. It's a fact of natural languages.
At least, that's how I see it.
> Sihler says that stative verbs cannot have tenses. But surely
"knows", "has", "is dead", can have a past tense,
Only once tenses and time distinctions have developed.
Besides, Sihler explains himself on page 443 (section 407)
"The main contrast is found in the distinction between states (tenseless)
and such events as are taking place as the speaker is talking - the true
present tense. ... Compare the force of
'Tom has a good time at parties' [(stative and timeless)]
and 'Tom is having a good time (at this party)' [(marked for time)]."
> I see no reason to reject the traditional idea
> that "knows" can be derived from "has seen", "has" can be derived
> from "has taken", ...
Sihler says that stative notions can be recast as eventives. In saying
these statives can be derived from events, isn't that what you are doing?
> I am not so convinced that the traditional idea of
> the stative as a perfect tense is wrong.
You're not alone. Some people (eg Szemerényi) hold on to the traditional
idea. But the new one gives some insights, explanations, and understandings
that may be worth sacrificing the old idea for.
Peter