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/