Re: THEORY: Temporal Auxiliaries, Aspectual Auxiliaries, Modal Auxiliaries

Ray Brown wrote:

>I was going to combine this with my reply to Tom - but that got a bit long.
>  So I'll reply to Max separately.
>
>On Thursday, July 7, 2005, at 03:24 , # 1 wrote:
>
>>Ray Brown wrote:
>[snip]
>>>No - the French forms with _avoir_ (or _être_, see below) are not so
>>>clear cut. Consider _j'ai mangé_; it may mean:
>>>- I ate - simple past indicative
>>>- I have eaten - present perfect indicative.
>>>
>>
>>Yeah I know that fact, it's true since the "simple past" got out of usage
>>in French because that tense where only for progressive past but now, the
>>"composite past" carries progressive past and perfect past
>
>Really? Do you mean _j'ai mangé_ can also mean "I was eating" (progressive
>past)? Is _je mangeais_ really on its way out? I knew that had happened in
>colloquial southern German but I was quite unaware of its happening in
>French.
>
Yeah, "J'ai mangé" can mean "I was eating", but I said that simple past
"disapeared" not "imperfect": "je mangeais" is imperfect and is still in
use, "je mangeai" is simple past and sounds very odd, this is the fear of
the youngs students because we have to learn it even if this is not in real
use, you'll see this only in stories, and usually at 3rd person

But the difference in meaning of "composite past" and "imperfect" as
"progressive past", "perfect present" and "imperfect past" is strange
because progressive past can be siad with the 2 conjugations depending of
the context

As-tu fini de manger ton repas? (Did you finished eating your meal?)
Oui, je l'ai mangé, maintenant (Yes, I have eaten it, now)

In that case it is the perfect present because of the "now"

As-tu aimé ton repas? (Did you like your meal?)
Oui, je l'ai aimé (I, I liked it)

I don't like it now, using "je l'ai aimé, maintenant" would sound very odd,
so it is progressive past, and using imperfect "je l'aimais" sounds like you
have loved it but stopped, ("je l'aimais" is usually used for a dead family
member, that you loved)

Qu'est-ce que tu faisais, hier soir? (What was you doing, last night?)
Je mangeais (I was eating)

It is progressive past, because it only concern a precise moment, last night

Qu'est-ce que tu faisais avant que j'arrive? (Qhat was you doing before I
arrived?)
Je mangeais (I was eating)

It is imperfect past, it is probably not finished so imperfect

>[snip]
>>>Just to confuse things, the simple past in English and the French
>>>composite past tense does have a perfective meaning. But as Trask says:
>>>"NOTE: be careful not to confuse perfective aspect with perfect aspect;
>>>they are entirely distinct."
>>>
>>
>>I'd like to know in what they are different.
>
>Please read my reply to Tom - the explanation is a bit long and I see no
>point in repeating it.
>
Yeah I read it, that's clearer

Thanks, it is clearer and will avoid me to do more mistakes with this

>>I'm sorry, I use these terms but never thought they might mean different
>>things...
>
>They mean quite different things. Confusing the two terms is, well,
>confusing.    :)
>
>[snip]
>>>I agree with perfect aspect and, possibly, future tense. Also with
>>>_j'aurais mangé_ the aspect is perfect, not perfective. But we have to
>>>remember that _j'aurais_ is the past form of _j'aurai_ (it has the same
>>>endings as the imperfect tense),
>>
>>"j'aurais" et "j'aurai" are not even at the same mode.
>
>That is a matter of controversy.
>
>Trask defines 'conditional' thus:
>"A conventional name for certain verb forms occurring in some languages,
>notably Romance languages, which typically express some notion of
>remoteness, supposition, approximation or implied condition. Semantically,
>  the conditional is really a mood, but formally it behaves more like part
>of the tense system...."
>
I thought that time could only be past-present-future with some exceptions

>>May you explain how they could could be forms differienced only by tense?
>
>Formally both the future and the conditional are formed on the same stem in
>all French verbs. The future is formed by suffixing forms derived from the
>_present_ tense of _avoir_:
>aur-ai, aur-as, aur-a, aur-(av)ons, aur-(av)ez, aur-ont.
>
>The conditional is formed by suffixing the same same set of endings as
>those added to the 'present stem' to form the imperfect tense (the 'past of
>the present'):
>aura-ais, aur-ais, aur-ait, aur-ions, aur-iez, aur-aient.
>
So you mean that "present conditionnal" is to "simple futur" what
"imperfect" is to "present"

>It seems to me that 'il aura' ~ 'il aurait' is remarkably analogous to 'he
>will have' ~ 'he would have', where "would" is the past of "will".
>
Yeah but that may be due to chance, the same thing doesn't exist between
shall-should, may-might, and can-could... Or maybe, but I don't see it

>It seems to me perfectly reasonable to interpret the stem aur- as carrying
>the same _modal_ significance as English "will".
>
I'm not sure of what is a modal signifiance but I know that "will" has more
uses than "avoir" auxiliary and don't corespond exactly, but I don't know if
it has a link with signifiance or modal signifiance

>Also the 'conditonal tense' is used not only in conditions but also to
>express the 'shifted future' (past of the future) in reported speech:
>>>and is used not only in conditions but also to express the "shifted
>>>future" just as "would" is used in English:
>>>il dit qu'il l'aura mangé  --> il a dit qu'il l'aurait mangé
>>>he says he will eat it     --> he said  he would eat it.
>>>
>>
>>I'd rather translate "il dit qu'il l'aura mangé" as "he says he will have
>>eaten it" and "il a dit qu'il l'aurait mangé" as "he said he would have
>>eaten it",
>
>Yes, sorry - I wrote this when I was tired and forgot to make the darn
>things perfect. Yep, it should be:
>he says he will have eaten
>he says he would have eaten.  (shifted future perfect)
>
>>The equivalents for "he says he will eat it" and "he said he would eat it"
>>  would rather be "il dit qu'il va le manger" and "il a dit qu'il le
>>mangerais"
>
>Future tense also died out? Is 'il le mangera' no longer used?
>
Not exactly "died out" but the form with "aller" auxiliary is more used

They can both be said in all the situations without any changes in meaning,
but I think that the form with "aller" is more used with a nearer futur than
the "simple futur" but, as I said, using one or the other doesn't change
anything

>In the French I learnt 50 years ago it would have been:
>il dit qu'il le mangera --> il a dit qu'il le mangerait
>he says he will eat it  --> he said he would eat it
>and
>il dit qu'il va le manger --> il a dit qu'il allait le manger
>he says he's going to eat it --> he said he was going to eat it
>
Yeah these translation are good but I'd like to know why you always use
present with "will" and past with "would". other forms can exist

he said he will eat it
he said he would eat it
he says he will eat it
he says he would eat it
he will say he will eat it
he will say he would eat it

Why are the two forms (2nd and 4th) you use for example so special? You use
"shifted futur" but what do they have that merit for their own name?

>>In that case of "shifted future with will-would changing it's made by
>>using "simple futur with "will" and "present conditionnal" with would
>>
>>>I will say no more than that it could be argued that the stem aur-
>>>denotes _irrealis_ mood  :)
>>>
>>
>>Isn't indicative realis?
>
>Yes, but I said _irrealis_ - that's the negative form of 'realis'   :)
>
Yeah, I know, but aur- like in "j'aurai" is indicative, so realis because
indicative indicates a fact

>>Because "I will have eaten", "j'aurai mangé"("future antérieur", perfect(
>>ive?) future) is indicative and realis because it is a fact, I anounce
>>that I will have eaten at some moment
>>
>>For subjonctive, yes, aur- is on an irrealis conjugation but since it is
>>also for simple futur it can't be said that it marks that it is irrealis
>
>The future ain't real - it's a set of probabilities.
>
But saying "J'aurai mangé" is an anouncement of a fact, if it is gonna
happen or not does not enter in conflict with the fact that it is realis

Irrealis represents probability but I don't say "I will probably have eaten"
but "I will have eaten", the happening is not important in the moment of the
saying of that sentence because that sentence enounce a fact

If I say "Men hunted dinosaures", even if that is false, that is realis
because it is a fact, the reality dosnt make anything

>>>[snip]
>>>>(It occurred to me after my original post that the participle used in
>>>>French's passe' compose' might be not an active participle but a past
>>>>participle.
>>>
>>>It is in fact the _perfect passive_ participle.
>>>
>>
>>The name is really the "past participle" but I think that it is only
>>perfect but not passive
>>
>>Like in "j'ai mangé", "mangé" is not passive because it has a passive
>>form: "j'ai été mangé"
>
>It is passive - that's why it has to have the extra -e in: j'ai la mangée
><-- *(ego) habeo illam manducatam.
>
What means "J'ai la mangé"?


- Max