Karl,
I couldn't agree more. We can also add that a certain amount of
redundancy is very natural, even valuable, in the system. We may have
two or three elements working together, reinforcing the same meaning
(or function.) "After we had finished the roof, we quit for the day."
There are three elements here working toward establishing the
relationship between the events: "after" as head of subordinate
clause, choice of "finished" as lexical verb, and use of past perfect
in the verb phrase. Whether we need all three is an open question, but
it would be wrong to single out any one of these as "error."
Craig
Craig,
>
> I think that multiplicity of ways to express the same notion is a point
> we, as teachers, need to ram home to our students. All to often, they
> have the notion (probably fostered by unreflective teachers who are
> looking for easy rules of thumb) that there is only one right way to do
> things, and if there is a variant, one must be wrong. That sort of
> grammatical reduction must be fought, even if it makes the story we tell
> our students more complicated.
>
> Karl
>
> On 2/18/2011 7:09 PM, Craig Hancock wrote:
>> Karl,
>> I had the great pleasure of an Old English class and Beowulf
>> seminar
>> (we translated the text) in a graduate program in the 70's, but that's
>> all pretty stale, so I follow these arguments from secondhand. The key
>> evidence, as I take it, is that past perfect didn't grammaticalize for
>> intransitive verbs right away. I say this, though, without direct
>> exposure to the empirical evidence.
>> Here's an interesting take from Talmy Givon: "In human language
>> there
>> is always more than one structural means of affecting the same
>> communicative function." Within context, I think he means we sometimes
>> see it cross language, but it is often true in a single language as
>> well. We still have a number of ways to express perfect aspect, or the
>> sense of a process having been or being completed in relation to a
>> point in time. In that sense, perfect aspect in the verb phrase works
>> in harmony (sometimes redundantly) with these other processes. It
>> might be lexicalized (a verb like "finished" or "completed") or
>> expressed through time oriented subordination ("before" or "after").
>> You can't tell someone about something or report something until after
>> it occurs. And there are, as with your OE example, adverbial options.
>> This is, I think, relevant to our past perfect discussion because
>> past
>> perfect is often one of several options and is therefor itself on
>> ocassion an optional element.
>>
>> Craig
>> 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/
>>>
>>
>> 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/
|
