Re: [tied] Re: Stative Verbs, or Perfect Tense

From: Andrew Jarrette
Message: 36503
Date: 2005-02-26



squilluncus <grvs@...> wrote:


>
> One point of Reference is Monro's "Homeric Grammar".   It's an old
book, but
> still in print, because it's still useful. 
> Peter

Another title is Pierre CHANTRAINE, GRAMMAIRE HOM�RIQUE, Paris 1953.

�292: "Le sens originel du parfait est d'exprimer un �tat qui se
situe dans le pr�sent, ou, du moins, dans l'actuel."
For this statement he gives references to Wackernagel Studien z.
griech. Perfectum, G�ttingen 1904 (already!) and his own Chantraine,
Histoire du parfait grec, Paris 1927.
He then gives examples similar to Monro's above.

In the following �� he states:
"Le r�le du parfait est d'exprimer un �tat acquis" �
(The state has then its origin in the past)

"En m�me temps que la r�f�rence au pass� devient sensible, le
parfait, g�n�ralement intransitif, a pu �tre suivi d'un compl�ment �
l'accusatif." �
"Le parfait leloipa est intransitif: psych�: d� l�loipen 'l'�me s'en
est all�'. Mais: epe� d�: pr�:ta tom�n en �ressi     
l�loipen 'maintenant qu'il a quitt� l'arbre o� il fut coup�'."   
(Intransitivity was the original nature but when something has been
done  objects will naturally be fitted to the verb).

"On emploie le parfait pour d�signer un ensemble d'actions qui
aboutissent � un �tat pr�sent: epe� kak� poll� p�pontha �"
(Rendering "after a state of a lot of suffering" might be
elucidating for Gef�hl of the transition from stative in present to
something started and accomplished in the past but valid now and
here).

I  further quote �296:
"Ces divers emplois ont conduit � la cr�ation du parfait
dit 'r�sultatif', qui exprime non l'�tat du sujet, mais le r�sultat
qui porte sur l'objet et qui finira, au cours de l'histoire du grec,
� �quivaloir � peu pr�s � un aoriste emphatique �"

Well, that was what I found on my bookshelf.

Lars

_____________________________

Very informative, but after reading

>In the following �� he states:
"Le r�le du parfait est d'exprimer un �tat acquis" �
(The state has then its origin in the past)

followed by

"Ces divers emplois ont conduit � la cr�ation du parfait
dit 'r�sultatif', qui exprime non l'�tat du sujet, mais le r�sultat
qui porte sur l'objet et qui finira, au cours de l'histoire du grec,
� �quivaloir � peu pr�s � un aoriste emphatique �"

I am still not clear as to whether these scholars consider this "state with origin in the past" as the original meaning of the perfect, or whether it is a later evolutionary meaning from an original that simply denoted present state regardless of past origin. I also have a little trouble in distinguishing "present state" from "simple present" or even "present progressive".  But Sihler says that it was not a tense distinction, but one of category of verb, differentiating between those that indicated here-and-now action versus ones that indicate a longlasting state (at least as I understand it).

Moreover, the example used to illustrate the progression from stative to resultative, "epei kaka polla pepontha", is inherently resultative because of its use of epei "after", not because of its use of the perfect form - anything that happens after something else can be the result of what went before.  So this example I did not find particularly helpful in explaining the transition from stative significance to resultative significance. A more illuminative example would not contain the word epei, I would think. 

Andrew