From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 46859
Date: 2006-12-31
----- Original Message -----From: Piotr GasiorowskiSent: Sunday, December 31, 2006 9:03 AMSubject: Re: [tied] Fw: SubjunctiveOn 2006-12-31 06:14, Patrick Ryan wrote:
> First, let me ask you a question.
>
> If I say:
>
> 'He is eating up the bread.'
>
> Is that perfective?
First, note that this question is about Modern English, a language in
which aspect is not a lexically specified property of verb stems.***
While it is true that many English verbs allow of an imperfective and perfective interpretation suggested by the syntax
('I eat bread' - imperfective; 'I eat the bread' - perfective)
others are _lexically_ imperfective or perfective:
('I approach the house' - imperfective; 'I arrive at the house' - perfective).
So, for example, one simple lexically perfective correspondent to 'eat' is 'consume', which can also be expressed by 'eat up'.
What I cannot believe you do not grasp is that perfective has to do with the goal of an activity not its duration; as long as the speaker has a logical goal in mind, the action can be punctual or durative:
'I am consuming the bread'; 'I consume the bread'; 'I shall consume the bread'
are all perfective.
English frequently employs prepositions, just like the Slavic languages, to indicate aspect: 'eat up' is perfective, whether durative or punctual.
Most importantly, these are not properties of English alone but universal characteristics of the categories (terms).
'After he nibbled at the cheese, he went to bed.'
This is imperfective (no clear goal stated) but punctual.
You do not seem to be able to distinguish imperfective and durative; perfective and punctual.
***
In
English, aspect (progressive, perfect or a combination of both) is
expressed analytically with the help of auxiliary verbs. If not
expressed grammatically (as in the "simple tenses"), the aspect of most
verbs is ambiguous. "Is eating up" is formally progressive (i.e.
imperfective) , whatever the inherent semantics of "eat up", which
normally tends to refer to punctual actions ("And then the wolf ate up
Little Red Ridding Hood"). Actually, "He is eating up the bread" is
shorthand for something like "He's eating the bread and he's going (or:
as if he were going) to eat it all up".***
Shorthand? I believe that is a bit of a reach!
'eat up' does not normally tend to refer to punctual actions it refers to a _perfective_ action.
***
This is precisely what the
subjunctive of aorist verbs could express in PIE.***
Why do you not demonstrate that with an example or two?
***
> Unquestionably, the reduplicated perfect supplanted the
> unreduplicated perfect but this happened to most verbs so any that
> escaped the process in any given branch is fortuitous and unpredictable.
Why "unquestionably" ?***
Because 1 comes before 2; simple before complex. It is the universe we live in. Sorry about that.
***
> I consider W. P. Lehmann a fine linguist. This was his view
> (_Proto-Indo- European Synatx_).
>
> And, I believe you know, we have been talking about PIE.
>
> Obligative and necessitative are not indicative statements of fact.
> They are both, in a sense, irrealis. That is, of course, why the
> subjunctive could later migrate to non-second person imperatives and
> optatives.
See Jens's comment:
http://tech. groups.yahoo. com/group/ cybalist/ message/37904***
Veni, vidi. So, Jens thinks the subjunctive conveys 'consequently'. So what?
***
The subjunctive is also used in making command-like first-person
proposals ("Let's go", "Let me guess"), in asking for advice ("What
shall I do?"), and, very importantly, is simply used as a sort of future
tense. I believe Lehmann's emphasis on the "obligative/ necessitative"
meaning (which look to me like an elaboration of Delbrück's old
argument) results from his leaning too exclusively on a somewhat
tendentious interpretation of the Vedic data. The subjunctive may
actually be used with "prospective" (you will/would) as well as
"voluntative" (you shall/should) meanings, expressing the expected (but
unreal or not-yet-real) consequences of a given situation.
Piotr
***'I must/should go'; 'What must/should I do?'
Well, I differ with you on 'tendentious'. But you are entitled to your opinion.
What do you "lean on"?
Patrick
***