Talk:Preterite

message: I may be missing something here, but I fail to see why Ladino, a language with fewer than 200,000 native speakers and of little historical significance, bears mentioning in this article. Romanian and Catalan are both Romance languages with larger native-speaking populations and, at least in the case of Romanian, historical importance. And yet, both are excluded. I'm deleting it from the article, unless someone can present good reason why it should remain. --The Berzerk Dragon (talk) 12:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ladino 

message: There's a lot of German on this page, I'm not so sure it belongs here.  Maybe it would work better if it were suplemented with Spanish and French information also?  I think then maybe we would exceed the scope of the article.  It might be better if we leave the German/foreign language lesson to Wikibooks.  I didn't really want to delete information or change anything without some input from other users.  Any comments appreciated. --NitrogenX (Michael Hines) 04:38, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The preterite is a Germanic grammatical phenomenon.  The Latin Imperfect or the French passé simple or its equivalents in other romanic languages are not the same as the preterite.  The preterite simply does not exist in these languages.  The preterite is the default form for telling events in the past (for example in a novel) in English or German.  In French the passé simple is used instead, and in Italian it is the passato remoto, both descendants of the Latin perfect.  It is a fundamental difference between English/German and many other indoeuropean languages, and it is therefore not possible to give examples in non-germanic languages. --GFlohr (talk) 22:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's... not at all true. That Romance languages don't have a separate tense devoted to the preterite does not mean that they have no tense which can also act as preterite. You mention yourself the Latin perfect, which even in Classical Rome was understood and frequently used in such a way which we would now call preterite, or simple past. To claim that there is some concept in some language which is inexpressible in other languages is just plain stupid and elitist. --216.145.71.230 (talk) 02:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  German 

message: actually being an Italic language.  Kameal (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Latin is being treated here as a Romance language

message: As a speaker of Spanish and English, and having visited most of the locales mentioned, I really do not perceive the changes mentioned in the last paragraph. As I read the paragraph, it somehow implies that it is more common in Ireland to say "I ate the egg" than "I have eaten the egg," even if the speaker just finished breakfast. Similarly, in American Spanish, one would supposedly be more likely to say "Comí el huevo" after breakfast. I just don't find either to be the case. The present perfect is still more natural, even for Americans or Irish. And I do not think the meaning is any different on either side of the ocean in either language.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.100.224 (talk) 05:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Shift to Preterite from Present Perfect in Western Hemisphere (Spanish / English)

message: I propose this be merged with Past historical. Past historical is a stub, while preterite is more fully developed. More importantly, the two terms mean the same thing - the intro to preterite states "The preterite (also [...] past historic)". I see no distinction between the two, but I only understand the preterite in one language other than English, so it's possible I'm wrong. Bsimmons666 (talk) 03:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger proposal

message: Hello authors. I have commented this section out: 
In certain regions, a few specific verbs are used in the preterite, for instance the modal verbs, and the verbs haben (have) and sein (be).
* Es gab einmal ein kleines Mädchen, das Rotkäppchen hieß. (There was once a small girl who was called Little Red Riding Hood.)
I'm far from being fluent in German language, but as far as I know, "es gab" is simply the past (praterite) for of "es gibt". I cannot see what is specific about it -- if there's no perfect version of it (being the equivalent of "there has been"), then please elaborate on it. 
Right now it's simply not clear enough what the author meant.
LMB (talk) 12:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: These verbs are used in the preterite tense even in everyday speech, while other verbs are not. E.g., it would be very rare to hear the phrase "ich ging" (I went), with the form "ich bin gegangen" far more common in spoken German, while phrases with the verbs mentioned such as "ich hatte" or "es gab" are far more common than their perfect forms.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.167.236.161 (talk) 22:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the section you have commented out. It's completely nonsensical – the example sentence is Standard German, not something pertaining to "certain regions". It contains neither "haben", "sein", nor a modal verb. It is a perfectly ordinary example of the Präteritum. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What the author meant (and I inadvertently put in something of the same kind) was this: While the imperfect (it's the name we learnt in school) somewhat fades out of use (though I wouldn't have been sure about this in Middle German regions), it is obviously kept alive in some cases without even making the intention to fade. This is (unfortunately for learners?) the case with strong verbs (the name speaks for itself), that is, irregular verbs (ich war in any cases, ich hatte in Standard German, though the Bavarian dialect always uses perfect) except those which, while irregular, still form the regular ending (es brannte etc.; ich konnte being the exception) - are they felt still too weak? -, plus one regular modal verb (ich wollte). In addition, the imperfect seems to be tending really to become an imperfect, not sure whether only in Upper German regions or altogether. "Ich war gerade mit dem Antrag beschäftigt, als die Pause gewesen ist." (I was being occupied with the petition, when there was the break.") Thus, even here in Bavaria I'd not be so surprised when somebody in everyday conversation said: "Wir buken gerade noch den Kuchen, als der erste Gast eingetroffen ist", we were still baking the cake when the first guest arrived, although it would be a "Standardgermanism" certainly, and in this case even with a word that the Duden lists as archaic (buken). However I would certainly be surprised if somebody used the Duden's alternative backten (which to my ears never has become German).  And to begin a fairytale with Es gab einmal is style-breaking, even if the Brothers Grimm may have done so themselves. It must, of course, be Es war einmal.--77.4.41.227 (talk) 14:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: And one other regular modal verb (ich sollte). --93.133.195.55 (talk) 23:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commented out German section  

message: I have tagged as "dubious" the following assertion:
:Coincidentally, British Mainland English present perfect forms are sometimes replaced with simple pasts by Irish and North American English speakers, an exactly parallel development.
It is not possible, in North American English, to replace I have been to Russia with I went to Russia, which is the suggestion that seems to be implicit here.
I think what's going on is that, in UK English, the present perfect is obligatory in combination with words that indicate recentness, such as just or already.  For example, in US English it is possible to say I just ate, whereas in the UK it would have to be I've just eaten.  But in US English, it is possible to use I just ate distinctively from I've just eaten (depending on whether the speaker is relating the action taken as a whole, versus a present state of presumable fullness).  The extent to which this is actually done, I won't attempt to say, but the situation is more complicated than a simple replacement of the present perfect by the simple past. --Trovatore (talk) 01:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What they mean is that many people say "I have went to Russia". Still a perfect, but the past participial form of the verb has been replaced with the past. A huge percentage of the population have only two basic verb forms rather than three. — kwami (talk) 03:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: “I have went to Russia” (while substandard) is not the preterit.  The claim here is that “present perfect forms” are replaced with “simple pasts” (not participles with simple past forms, but present perfect forms).  The present perfect and the preterit are not interchangeable and the present perfect isn't going anywhere in AmE.  As for simple past forms uniformly supplanting past participles (a completely different and unrelated issue), citation needed.  While I know plenty of speakers that do supplant past participles with the simple past form, it's only with some verbs.  For some verbs, the opposite is more common:  “I have went” is no more common in Appalachia than “I seen” but while some dialects do that, it's not characteristic of AmE overall. mcornelius (talk) 23:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

text:  In the US or in Ireland?  I have went to Russia is definitely considered substandard in the US.  In any case it doesn't fit the text, which talks about the present perfect being replaced by the simple past, not by some third construction. --Trovatore (talk) 03:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In the US. You're right, it doesn't fit the context. But being considered substandard is irrelevant: it's reality. (Presumably the Canary Isl. thing is also considered substandard.) — kwami (talk) 05:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: My vague impression, though, is that the present perfect really is disappearing from Mexican Spanish.  I could be wrong, but I don't see it much when I look at their newspapers.  In American English, on the other hand, it is in no danger whatsoever; the line of demarcation is just in a different place from the one in British English. --Trovatore (talk) 10:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious 

message: This article is useless and defeating for any English speaker trying to find out what a preterite is. I am restraining myself from using vulgar language. This is truly an abuse of power by some WP administrator.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dynasteria (talk • contribs) 23:54, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Idiotic 

message: There are some incorrect claims in the section on the German preterite because of a confusion of different phenomena as well as different varieties/registers.
The first paragraph is mostly fine, although it is not stated what is meant by "originally". However, the second paragraph mixes different things. The claim that "in modern German, however, these tenses no longer reflect any distinction in aspect" is certainly not correct when speaking about (especially formal or literary) written modern German. In fact, the distinction between Präteritum and Perfekt is still more or less one between how the event is related to the present. Although the distinction is not exactly the same as in English, possibly less clear (such that there are more cases where both forms are acceptable), and more dependent on register/style, these tenses are not freely interchangeable. What is probably meant is that there is no distinction between progressive and non-progressive aspect, but such a distinction never existed for written German. The lack of a present progressive tense is not relevant here either. (Actually, I have the intuition that in the spoken language (!) at least some speakers use Präteritum and Perfekt to distinguish what would be past progressive and simple past in English, especially with some frequent verbs, but I cannot give a valid source.) As for the statement that the preterite is mostly a narrative tense, this is correct (and in fact contradicts the claim that there is no distinction in aspect anymore), although the preterite is also used to describe states of longer duration that are not part of a connected action (such as in "Vor 500 Millionen Jahren enthielt die Erdatmosphäre keinen Sauerstoff" ("500 million years ago, the earth's atmosphere did not contain any oxygen"). 
The section on Upper German is correct and precise, but it cannot be introduced by "for example" since it does not illustrate what was said before about: What is said about Upper German does not hold for modern German in general, since it only refers to the spoken language and informal writing of a particular region. Furthermore, in the Upper German dialects the Perfekt is used as a general past tense for several hundred years now, thus including varieties that are probably not meant by "modern German".
Furthermore, the reference [5] is in the wrong place, since it apparently describes the use of the tenses in Upper German.
Thus, I'd suggest to rewrite the second paragraph into something like "In modern German, the use of Präteritum and Perfekt does not exactly correspond to that between the English preterite and perfect tense, and depends on the variety and the register. The Präteritum typically has the meaning of a narrative tense, i.e. a tense used primarily for describing connected past actions (e.g. as part of a story), and is used most often in formal writing and in literature, while the Perfekt is more common in spoken language as well as informal writing.", and to remove "for example" from the beginning of the third paragraph. --2001:16B8:2B64:D300:B1F8:E3A5:81C0:BC01 (talk) 12:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  German section