TJ,
I wouldn't directly disagree with Craig's general point about functions
evolving, but I would want to emphasize that form and function tend to
co-evolve, in a sort of push-me/pull-you way.
Bringing up the OE perfect raises a whole host of difficulties, not
least of which is that's there's disagreement about how fully
grammaticalized HAVE + the past participle is in OE, but I think it can
illustrate evolving function. We just can't get too sticky about dates.
I'm inclined to think that OE had a fully grammaticalized perfect with
habban (have) + a past participle, but it really doesn't matter if you
argue, as some do, that it only became grammaticalized in Middle English.
OE shows a persistence of other ways of expressing perfective aspect in
addition to the ancestral form of the present-day perfect.
For example, Aelfric uses the simple past + an adverb to illustrate the
pluperfect in his grammar: "ic lufode gefyrn" (I loved formerly). But he
also uses the paraphrastic form in his sermons.
You also find habben + an inflected past participle, suggesting that in
those instances, at least, the participle was still felt to be an adjective.
As some point, then, a form that was originally habban as the main verb
+ a participle inflected as an adjective came to be reanalyzed as an
auxiliary verb + an uninflected past participle. This form also took on
functions that formerly had been expressed (sic) in other ways.
Karl
On 2/18/2011 9:45 AM, T. J. Ray wrote:
> Karl,
> You and Craig are quite accurate in pointing out a possibe ambiguity
> that attends what appear to be perfect
> verb structures. After many decades of teaching OE, I'm having trouble
> getting your point there and trying
> to fit it backward into OE.
>
> tj
>
>
>
> On Friday 02/18/2011 at 7:52 am, Craig Hancock wrote:
>> Karl,
>> Nice points. That means a sentence like "I have broken windows in my
>> house" would be fundamentally ambiguous. I hadn't thought of that.
>> Nice amendment.
>> As a functionalist, I would tend to look at this diachronically. If we
>> have forms around, it seems reasonable to expect that they would
>> change their range of use, just as words do. Just as the same word can
>> have different meanings, a form can evolve different functions.
>> Herb could probably correct me on this one, but I think perfect aspect
>> evolved from a causative construction in old English, something like
>> "We have the windows broken," somewhat analogous to "they made us
>> laugh," where the change in state verb comes after the direct object.
>> Word order shifted, and then the form generalized out later to include
>> intransitive verbs: "We have broken the windows." "We have laughed."
>> I like your formulation of it, and we could propose this as an EBB
>> (everyone but Brad) position. "It is useful to separate function and
>> form because forms often carry out more than one function. They often
>> mean different things in different contexts."
>>
>> Craig
>>
>> On 2/17/2011 10:29 PM, Karl Hagen wrote:
>>>
>>> Craig,
>>>
>>> I agree with both you and Dick, and I also think this highlights the
>>> need to keep the form/function distinction clearly in mind when
>>> discussing such things.
>>>
>>> Mixing the two up (something traditional grammar does with great
>>> frequency) almost always leads to confusion, particularly because
>>> when you don't distinguish the two, it fosters the notion that there
>>> is precisely one meaning for each form. So, for example, you get the
>>> idea that the past tense always refers to past time. Or, conversely,
>>> that past time must always be expressed in the past tense.
>>>
>>> BTW, one minor quibble, I would want the definition of the perfect as
>>> a form to include a mention that "have" must be an auxiliary, since
>>> it is possible to construct sentences where a main-verb "have" is
>>> followed by a past participle with another function (e.g., a noun
>>> modifier), making the sequence has/have/had + past participle merely
>>> a fortuitous collocation.
>>>
>>> Karl
>>>
>>> On 2/17/2011 7:02 PM, Craig Hancock wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Dick,
>>>> You have espoused a position (if I followed it right) that I would
>>>> fundamentally agree with: that the past perfect is recognizable first
>>>> and foremost as a form--had plus past participle. And that whether it
>>>> is being used appropriately or inappropriately, effectively or
>>>> ineffectively, it remains past perfect, just as a screw driver remains
>>>> a screw driver even when you use it to poke someone in the eye.
>>>> Questions about effective use can be thought of as separate from that.
>>>>
>>>> Craig>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Craig,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree completely, and I look forward to every one of Herb's
>>>>> posts. But
>>>>> people do continue to respond to Brad. If doing the same thing
>>>>> again and
>>>>> again and expecting a different result is insanity, I wonder who is
>>>>> crazier,
>>>>> those who keep taking Brad's bait or those (like you and me) who keep
>>>>> trying
>>>>> to get others to *stop *taking his bait.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dick
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Craig Hancock<[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dick,
>>>>>> The idea for this most recent conversation is to come up with a view
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> the past perfect that pleases the rest of us. Whether it pleases
>>>>>> Brad is
>>>>>> not
>>>>>> important. It is insanity to expect a conversation with Brad to
>>>>>> accomplish
>>>>>> anything new, so our goal should be to discuss it with each other.
>>>>>> I am
>>>>>> looking forward to reading what Herb comes up with. I expect Brad to
>>>>>> react
>>>>>> angrily to that, but his response is irrelevant.
>>>>>> I may be wrong, but I think reacting to Brad has kept us from a
>>>>>> productive discussion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Craig
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/16/2011 3:51 PM, Dick Veit wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If we would all try just a little harder, explain the past perfect
>>>>>> just
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> little more clearly, try just one or two or fifty more times to get
>>>>>> you-know-who to engage in productive dialogue, surely then he will
>>>>>> see
>>>>>> reason and all will be well and we can turn to other topics. We won't
>>>>>> know
>>>>>> if we don't try many, many, many more times, will we?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Dick
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 10:24 AM, Geoffrey Layton
>>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Geoff Layton
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>>> Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 08:45:46 -0500
>>>>>>> From: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>> Subject: insanity
>>>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting different
>>>>>>> results.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
>>>>>> interface
>>>>>> at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or
>>>>>> leave the list"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
>>>>>> interface
>>>>>> at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or
>>>>>> leave the list"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
>>>>> interface
>>>>> at:
>>>>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>>>>> and select "Join or leave the list"
>>>>>
>>>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
>>>> interface at:
>>>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>>>> and select "Join or leave the list"
>>>>
>>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>>>
>>>
>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
>>> interface at:
>>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>>> and select "Join or leave the list"
>>>
>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>
>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
>> interface at:
>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>> and select "Join or leave the list"
>>
>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
> interface at:
> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
|
