Disputatio:Aspectus (ars grammatica)

message: Quid significat hoc verbum? Cur non est forma perfectus, -a, -um? IacobusAmor 12:15, 21 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quippe sit.--Ioscius (disp) 13:36, 21 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
Perfecticus est nomen aspectus, perfectum temporis. Dependet theoria! -- IP Quindicenne 12:23, 26 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

text: Unde hoc -ic-? Anglice verbum est perfect, non perfectic; Francogallice parfait, non parfaitique; Hispanice perfecto, non perféctico;  Theodisce, perfekt, non perfektisch. Ubi est attestatus verbi perfecticus fons? IacobusAmor 13:41, 26 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

text: Vide vicipaediae Anglicae commentarium: "The terms perfective and perfect are used in an unfortunate and highly confusing fashion in different writings about linguistics. Traditional Greek grammar uses the term "perfect" to refer to a grammatical tense encoding what is variously described as a past action with present relevance or a present state resulting from a past action. (For example, "I have gone to the cinema" implies both that I went to the cinema and that I am now in the cinema.) The perfect is opposed to the aorist, describing a simple past action, and the imperfect, describing an ongoing past action. From this, the aspectual nature of the perfect tense was generalized into the perfect aspect, describing a previously completed action with relevance to a particular time. Accordingly, English grammar speaks of the present perfect ("I have gone"), the past perfect or pluperfect ("I had gone"), and the future perfect ("I will have gone")." IacobusAmor 14:01, 26 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
Est terminus "perfektischer Aspekt", "Perfekt (Tempus)" et "Perfektiver Aspekt" Theodisce. Engl. "perfect" significare Theodisce "Perfekt" aut "Perfektischer Aspekt" potest! Vide fontem Coniugatio linguae Graeca Antiquae http://www.graecum.net/21.html et Wikipedia Theodisce pagina "aspectus (lingusitica)"! -- IP Quindicenne 17:02, 26 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

text: Ah, credo ergo aptissimum verbum Anglicum esse "perfective"; Latinum, perfectivus, -a,- um. IacobusAmor 18:02, 26 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Perfecticus, -a, um?''

message: ..."esse" cum participium praesentis... dicitur "to be" with the present participle? Tunc fuerit: "esse" cum participio praesente (cum+ablativus) nonne?--Rafaelgarcia 17:07, 31 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's ver right. cum with acc. is scruffy. And not classical. IP Quindicenne 15:45, 30 Novembris 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dubio

message: (copied from Dispuatatio:Usor:Rafaelgarcia)
Rafael, in the diagram which you made for Aspectus, there are a couple of misspellings (at least, I think that's what they are!) First, apectus appears twice in place of aspectus. Then -- I'm not sure if this was intended -- the words imperfecticus and perfecticus are used, whereas the article has imperfectivus and perfectivus. I can't edit this diagram, but maybe, if you agree with me, you could edit it yourself? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 22:10, 29 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Andrew, sorry for the errors. It seems I can't help but make such errors! The Aspectus page however seems to introduce the terms imperfecticus and perfecticus as translations for perfective and imperfective on the english page. Do you think the aspectus page is in error in the usage of these terms? Let me know and I can fix the errors right away tonight.--Rafaelgarcia 22:16, 29 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: : Hi, Rafael (and Andrew), "perfecticus" and "imperfecticus" are home-made anomalies that should have no place in an encyclopaedia. Martinus Neander 22:35, 29 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Ok I'll upload a new version with the corrections momentarily.--Rafaelgarcia 22:37, 29 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Above, the original author seems to have been distinguishing between two German concepts, so maybe the invention of a new word to differentiate between perfective and (!) perfectic is OK—but you'd have to read the article to find out, and I haven't done that. IacobusAmor 06:08, 30 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :::: Languages with a three-aspect system (Greek, Old Indo-Aryan, etc) certainly need a three-fold system like "imperfective", "perfective", "perfect(ic)", but it's all too easy to mix up "perfective" and "perfect(ic)" (of which even the discussion on this page bears evidence). Therefore, I'm not too fond of "perfect(ic)". In his well-known Grammatik des Neugriechischen, Hans Ruge wields "perfektisch", but on the cost of replacing "perfektiv" by "paratatisch". So, his system becomes clearer but also somewhat idiosyncratic. --Neander 00:29, 31 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::Not having studied this myself, I am all the more confused, What aspects of verbs are called grammatical aspects? Are aoristive, progressive/improgressive and inchoative/processive legitimate grammatical aspects along side perfective/imperfective? Then the first paragraph should be changed to reflect that there are many kinds of aspects not just perfective/imperfective, I should think...--Rafaelgarcia 00:57, 31 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::Perhaps this excerpt, from Leonard Bloomfield's analysis of Tagalog verbs, will help (incidentally, note that Bloomfield preferred terms other than perfective and imperfective): "Each . . . transient formation exists in two modes, actual and contingent, and each of these has two aspects, punctual and durative; the actual mode envisages the occurrence as actually having taken place or taking place; in the punctual aspect the occurrence is viewed in its entirety, without regard to duration, and hence always as past . . . ; in the durative aspect of the actual the occurrence is viewed as a process going on in time, past or present. . . . The contingent mode views the occurrence as not having actually taken place: the punctual aspect views it as possible, hypothetical, or commanded . . . ; the durative as future from the point of view of the past or present. . . . The punctual contingent form is used not only in commands and hypothetical clauses, but in subordinate predications and complements generally" (1917:217). So if we want to avoid the Eurocentrism of the old terms, for imperfective we could coin durativus, -a, -um, and for perfective we could use the medieval adjective punctualis. IacobusAmor 01:22, 31 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::: Not being aspectologist, myself, I'm rather reluctant to get involved in this matter which looks more ingenuous than it really is ... But let me say this: Aspect can be approached from two, kind of opposite, directions, viz. morphology or (sentential, situational) semantics. Morphological aspect tends to be language-specific: basically we're looking for the kind of morphological devices (affixes, ablaut, reduplication and other devices of stem-formation), in various languages, that obviously can't be related to temporal functions. Sentential-situational aspect tends or purports to be universal in presenting, as it does, a situation (event, state etc.) from a particular point of view; in quasi-psychological terms, it represents the (ideal) speaker's choice of perspective on the situation. Often these approaches are done together. Maybe this is kind of necessity, but the problem seems to be that the integrative move tends to be made without an adequate theory of sentential-situational aspect. The present article in the making appears to be morphologically or grammatically driven, which means that, in principle, it should enumerate a huge set of languages with aspectual morphology, which is impossible. Therefore, a few well-chosen language samples must do. (And I think, the linguistic coverage of the present article is quite good.) What we (and obviously other Wikis too) need is another article on Aspect (Sentential), which would try to elaborate a typology of situations from the pov of natural language syntax and semantics (and casting this in terms of conversational choice, or so). A universalist typological approach may be even better a remedy against the Eurocentrism than Bloomfield (with all due respect to this great linguist!) --Neander 03:10, 31 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Perfecticus et Perfectivus

message: It's great that this new aspect has been identified...but can you cite a nice reference that discusses it? All the other sections cite references. Also, shouldn't the existence of this aspect be mentioned in the section on species aspectus? It comes all to suddenly out of the blue here. Also under the section on lingua latina the perfectivus and imperfectivus should be mentioned, shouldn't it? Otherwise we are left wondering...what happened to the stuff discussed in the species aspectus section regarding lingua latina.--Rafaelgarcia 23:49, 30 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: aspectus inchoativus

message: Does anyone here know Polish? I don't, but from what I know of Russian it seems to me that the following section (copied from the article) is not entire correct (I have added my comments between square brackets and underlined):
* Aspectus imperfectivus: Hic aspectus terminationem confectam non exprimi committit. Exempla: Polonice "On chce pisać list", "Scripturus est epistulam" [should be: "Scribere vult epistulam" (chce = vult)] (orator solum voluntas scribendi epistulae dicit; non affirmat scribendum epistulae finire). Quod imperfectivus plus quam his exprimere (iterationes, consuetudines, conatus) potest, item translationes possibiles sunt: "Sriptitat epistulam; Scribere epistulam conatur" [These two translations seem to be based on a slightly different Polish sentence, without 'chce' ('vult'), and with a finite form of the verb pisać (which I myself am unable to provide].
* Aspectus perfectivus: Hic aspectus oratorem factos dictos conficere velle signat. Exempla: Polonice, "On chce napisać list", "Scribere finire epistulam vult" [I'd say: "Scribere conficere vult epistulam" or even "Scripsisse vult epistulam"]. Sed perfectivus alias significationes habet; itaque translationes possibiles sunt: "Scripserit epsitulam" (perfectivus praesens significationem futuri adaequat: prospectivus vocatur), "Paulum scribendi tempus peragit" [These two translations also seem to presuppose another sentence, without 'chce' ('vult') and with a finite form of napisać].
--Fabullus 06:57, 31 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Polish examples

message: Sunt linguae Anglica, Sanscritica, et Francogallica sub Lingua Latina?--Ioscius (disp) 15:30, 31 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: stand there textus superscriptus in the gothica-part. What does it mean? What's to do there for me?- IP Quindicenne 17:24, 1 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :I don't understand the question (and I don't understand IP Q's answer either)! In the article I can see a series of languages dealt with in turn, but I don't see why the order should be significant.

text: :[Later:] Oh, I get it now. There was an error in hierarchy (which Ioscius has corrected). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:17, 1 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::To IP Q: It was you who added "textus superscriptus", probably by mistake. I'll remove it. --Amphitrite 20:08, 1 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
Oh sorry! I cannot really remember it. Do I get older :-) ? - IP Quindicenne 12:34, 2 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  cur...? 

message: Handy, no doubt, but since it isn't standard English I added a footnote explanation for those unfamiliar with it. OK? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:54, 1 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Y'all