Finnic languages

Finnish and Estonian, among others, have a grammatical aspect contrast of telicity between telic and atelic. Telic sentences signal that the intended goal of an action is achieved. Atelic sentences do not signal whether any such goal has been achieved. The aspect is indicated by the case of the object: accusative is telic and partitive is atelic. For example, the (implicit) purpose of shooting is to kill, such that:

Ammuin karhun -- "I shot the bear (succeeded; it is done)"; i.e., "I shot the bear dead".

Ammuin karhua -- "I shot at the bear"; i.e., "I shot the bear (and I am not telling if it died)".

Sometimes, corresponding telic and atelic forms have as little to do with each other semantically as "take" has with "take off". For example, naida means "to marry" when telic, but "to have sex with" when atelic.

Also, derivational suffixes exist for various aspects. Examples:

-ahta- "do suddenly by itself" as in ammahtaa "to shoot up" from ampua "to shoot"

-ele- "repeatedly" as in ammuskella "to go shooting around"

There are derivational suffixes for verbs, which carry frequentative, momentane, causative, and inchoative aspect meanings; also, pairs of verbs differing only in transitivity exist.

[edit]

Italian

Italian grammar doesn't recognise explicitly verbal aspects, and focuses more on moods and tenses. Still, most mood/tense combinations (such as indicative/future) feature two aspects, called in italian grammar books tempi semplici (simple tenses) and tempi composti (compound tenses). The compound tenses are called so because they're formed by the appropriated auxiliary verb conjugated in the correspondent simple tense, and the main verb conjugated in the past participle. Simple tenses render the imperfective (sometime aorist) aspect, and compound tenses render the perfective aspect. This is a direct derivation of the way the latin language used to render both aspects and consecutio temporum. The compound tenses are generally used in subordinate clauses, with the sole exception of passato prossimo, used by most speakers in northern Italy as substitute for passato remoto.

Example (verb mangiare, to eat)

Mood: indicativo (indicative)

Presente (present): io mangio (I eat)

Passato prossimo (recent past): io ho mangiato (I have eaten)

Imperfetto (imperfect): io mangiavo (I was eating)

Trapassato prossimo (recent pluperfect): io avevo mangiato (I had eaten)

Passato remoto (far past): io mangiai (I ate)

Trapassato remoto (far pluperfect): io ebbi mangiato (I had eaten)

Futuro semplice (simple future): io mangerò (I shall eat)

Futuro anteriore (future perfect): io avrò mangiato (I shall have eaten)

The difference between the imperfetto/trapassato prossimo and the passato remoto/trapassato remoto is that imperfetto renders an imperfective (continuous) past; passato remoto renders an aorist (punctual/historical) past.

Other aspects in italian are rendered with other periphrases, like inchoative (io sto per mangiare I'm about to eat, io starò per mangiare I shall be about to eat), or continuative/progressive (io sto mangiando I'm eating, io starò mangiando I shall be eating).

[edit]

Confusing terminology: perfective vs. perfect This article is in need of attention from an expert on the subject. WikiProject Linguistics or the Linguistics Portal may be able to help recruit one. (November 2008)

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 come 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").

Latin, however, lacks a distinction between aorist and perfect, and for morphological reasons the single tense representing the combination of both meanings is called the "perfect". The two-way distinction here between imperfect and perfect is carried over into the terminology of various modern languages, such as the Slavic languages and the Romance languages, where a distinction between "imperfective" and "perfective" aspect corresponds to a distinction between an event viewed as ongoing or with internal structure and an event viewed as a simple whole. That is, what is called "perfective" is similar to the aspectual nature of the original Greek aorist, not the Greek perfect.

Many linguists have tried to maintain this terminology. The web site of SIL International, for example, describes the "perfective aspect" as "an aspect that expresses a temporal view of an event or state as a simple whole, apart from the consideration of the internal structure of the time in which it occurs".[6] This has led other linguists to categorize the three-way aspectual distinction visible in Greek, English, Spanish and various other languages as a distinction between "imperfective", "perfective" and "perfect". Not surprisingly, the latter two are constantly confused, and "perfective" is often taken to be synonymous with "perfect".

[edit]

Examples of various aspects rendered in English

Perfective (aorist, simple; see above): 'I struck the bell.' (single action)

Perfect (sometimes confusingly called "perfective"; see above): 'I have arrived at the cinema.' (hence, I am now in the cinema)

Progressive (continuous): 'I am eating.' (action is in progress)

Habitual: 'I walk home from work.' (every day)

'I would walk [OR: used to walk] home from work.' (past habit)

Imperfective (either progressive or habitual): 'I am walking to work' (progressive) or 'I walk to work every day' (habitual).

Prospective: 'I am about to eat' OR: 'I am going to eat."

Recent Perfect or After Perfect: 'I just ate' OR: 'I am after eating." (Hiberno-English)

Inceptive: 'I am beginning to eat.'

Inchoative (not clearly distinguished from prospective): 'The apples are about to ripen.'

Continuative: 'I am still eating.'

Terminative: 'I am finishing my meal.'

Conative: 'I am trying to eat.'

Cessative: 'I am quitting smoking.'

Defective : 'I almost fell.'

Pausative: 'I stopped working for a while.'

Resumptive: 'I resumed sleeping.'

Punctual: 'I slept.'

Durative: 'I slept for an hour.'

Delimitative: 'I slept for a while.'

Protractive: 'The argument went on and on.'

Iterative: 'I read the same books again and again.'

Frequentative: 'It sparkled', contrasted with 'It sparked'. Or, 'I run around', vs. 'I run'.

Experiential: 'I have gone to school many times.'

Intentional: 'I listened carefully.'

Accidental: 'I knocked over the chair.'

Generic: 'Mangoes grow on trees.'

Intensive: 'It glared.'

Moderative: 'It shone.'

Attenuative: 'It glimmered.'

Semelfactive (momentane): 'The mouse squeaked once.' (contrasted to 'The mouse squeaked/was squeaking.')

Predicative Constructions with the

Non-Finite Forms of the Verb

The Non-Finite forms of the Verb are more simple and economical expressive means of thought.

Combinations of non-finite forms of the verb with a noun or pronoun standing a front of them form various grammatical constructions.

In English there are three non-finite forms of the verb: Participle, Gerund, and Infinitive. Therefore, there are three groups of predicative constructions. These are the constructions with Participle, Gerund, and Infinitive.

Participial, Gerundial and Infinitive constructions are highly varied. The structure of some of them is foreign to the Russian language, although their meaning can be fully conveyed in Russian with the help of forms, characteristic of Russian. The constructions are translated into Russian by objective, attributive, adverbial or other subordinate clauses.

eg. 1) My son having lost the key, we could not enter the house. – Поскольку мой цын потерял ключ, мы не могли войти в дом. (Participle)

Here Participle is translated into Russian as the predicate of a subordinate clause.

2) There is no mistake about his being a genius. – Не может быть никакого сомнения в том, что он – гений. (Gerund)

3) She heard him open the door and go out into the garden. – Она слышала, как он открыл дверь и вышел во двор. (Infinitive)

My course paper aims at analyzing the Predicative Constructions with the Infinitive, the ways of translating them into Russian.

BODY

Predicative Infinitive Constructions

In Modern English we distinguish the following predicative constructions with the infinitive:

The Objective-with-the-Infinitive Construction

The Subjective-with-the-Infinitive Construction

The For-to-Infinitive Construction

The Absolute Infinitive.

I. The Objective-with-the-Infinitive Construction

The Objective-with-the-Infinitive Construction is a construction in which the Infinitive is in predicate relation to a noun in the common case or a pronoun in the objective case. In the sentence this construction has the function of a Complex Object. In translating the Objective-with-the-Infinitive Construction into Russian there is always used a subordinate clause.

Eg. She is a wonderful teacher and I’ve never seen her lose her temper or get angry about anything. – Она замечательная учительница, и я никогда не видела, чтобы она вышла из себя или рассердилась из-за чего-нибудь.

I believe him to know this subject well. – Я пологаю, что он хорошо знает этот предмет.

I consider this question to be very important. – Я считаю, что этот вопрос очень важен.

Although, sometimes a sentence containing The Objective-with-the-Infinitive Construction may be translated by a simple sentence.

Eg. The dread of the unknown made me recede (step back). – Страх перед неизвестностью заставил меня отступить.

He won’t allow himself do otherwise. – Он не позволит себе поступить иначе.

One’s gaze made me turn round. – Чей-то пристальный взгляд заставил меня обернуться.

His parents let him go to country excursion. – Его родители позволили ему поехать на загородную экскурсию.

She will never let him leave. – Она никогда не позволит ему уйти.

The Use of the Objective Infinitive Construction

The Objective-with-the-Infinitive Construction is used:

After verbs denoting sense perception, such as: “to hear”, “to see”, “to watch”, “to feel”, “to observe”, “to notice”, etc.

Eg. I haven’t heard anyone call me. – Я не слышал, чтобы

кто-нибудь меня звал.

I saw David enter the room. – И видел, как Девид вошел в комнату.

After verbs of sense perception only the Indefinite Infinitive Active is used. If the meaning is passive Participle II is used.

Eg. I saw the fire slowly faded. – Я видел, как пожар постепенно потух.

If a process is expressed, Participle I Indefinite Active is used.

Eg. He saw Wendy coming – Он увидел, как Венди идет.

It should be noted that the verb “to see” should be followed by a clause and not by the Objective-with-the-Infinitive Construction, when it is used in the meaning of “to understand”.

Eg. I saw that he did not realize the danger. – Я видел (понимал), что он не осознает опасность.

After the verbs “to see” and “to notice” the Objective-with-the-Infinitive Construction is not used with the verb “to be”. In such cases Subordinate Clause is used.

Eg. I saw, that he was pale. – Я видел, что он побледнел.

When the verb “to hear” is not a verb of sense perception and is used in the meaning “to learn”, “to be told”, a clause or a gerund is used, but not the Objective-with-the-Infinitive Construction.

Eg. I heard that he had left for France. – Мне сказали (Я слышал), что он уехал во Францию.

We have heard that she has found a job. — Мы узнали, что она нашла работу.

After verbs denoting mental activity, such as: “to know”, “to think”, “to consider”, “to believe”, “to suppose”, “to expect”, “to imagine”, “to find”, “to feel”, “to trust”, and etc.

After verbs of mental activity in the Objective-with-the-Infinitive Construction the verb “to be” is generally used. But this restriction does not apply to the verb “to expect”. The use of this construction after most verbs of mental activity is more characteristic of literary than of colloquial style.

Eg. I know you to be the most honest, spotless creature that ever lived. – Я знаю, что Вы самое честное и безупречное существо из всех, когда-либо живших на свете.

If you suppose that boy to be friendless, you deceive yourself. – Если вы предполагаете, что у этого мальчика нет друзей, вы ошибаетесь.

Everybody expected her to marry Pete. – Все ожидали, что она выйдет замуж за Пита.

After verbs of mental activity the Perfect Infinitive is used, but seldom.

Eg. The doctor found his heart to have stopped two hours before. – Доктор установил, что его сердце перестало биться два часа тому назад.

In the Objective-with-the-Infinitive Construction after verbs “to think”, “to consider”, “to find”, the verb “to be” is left out.

For instance, instead of “I consider him to be a good specialist” we can say “I consider him a good specialist” and translate into Russian literally “Я считаю его хорошим специалистом”. (This sentence is translated by simple sentence.)

After verbs of declaring: “to pronounce”, “to declare”, “to report”.

Eg. The surgeon pronounced the wound to be a slight one. – Врач сказал, что рана легкая.

She declared him to be the most disobedient child in existence. – Она заявила, что это самый непослушный ребенок на свете.

After verbs denoting wish and intention: “to want”, “to wish”, “to desire”, “to mean”, “to intend”, “to choose” (in the meaning “хотеть”) and also after the construction “I would like” (Я хотел бы).

Eg. He intended me to go with him to India. – Он хотел, чтобы я поехала с ним в Индию.

I want you to come and dine with me. – Я хочу, чтобы вы пришли со мной пообедать.

I don’t choose you to go by yourself to a hotel. – Я не хочу, чтобы вы жили в госитнице одна.

I would like her look to through my report. – Я бы хотел, чтобы она посмотрела мой доклад.

After verbs and expressions denoting feeling and emotion: “to like”, “to dislike”, “to love”, “to hate”, “cannot bear”, etc.

Eg. I dislike you to talk like that. – Я не люблю, когда ты так говоришь.

I hate him to be flogged. – Я терпеть не могу, когда его бьют.

I cannot bear you to speak of that. – Я не могу выносить, когда вы

говорите об этом.

After verbs denoting order and permission: “to order”, “to allow”, “to suffer”, “to have”, etc.

Here we find the Objective-with-the-Infinitive only if the object is expressed by a noun or pronoun, denoting lifeless thing or when the Infinitive is passive. This restriction does not apply to the verbs “to suffer” and “to have”.

Eg. Mr. Sinclair ordered his carriage to be ready early in the morning. – Мистер Синклер распорядился, чтобы экипаж был готов рано утром.

She had never allowed the name to John Gordon to pass her lips. – Она никогда не позволяла себе произносить имя Джона Гордона. (This sentence is translated by simple sentence.)

He ordered the wounded to be carried away from the field of battle. – Он приказал, чтобы раненного унесли с поля боя.

However, if the noun or pronoun denotes a person and it is followed by an inactive form as a rule the Infinitive is not a part of the Complex Object and has the function of second Direct Object, immediately subordinated to the Verb.

Eg. He ordered the prisoners to go away. – Он приказал пленным (закл-ченным) уйти. (This sentence is translated by simple sentence.)

The Objective-with-the-Infinitive Construction is used after verbs denoting compulsion: “to make” (in the meaning “заставить”), “to cause” (“заставить”, “распорядиться”), “to get” (“добиться”), “to have” (“заставить”,”сказать чтобы”).

Eg. Light steps in the gravel made him turn his head. – Легкие шаги по гравию заставили его повернуть голову. (This sentence is translated by simple sentence.)

She caused a telegram to be sent to him. – Она распорядилась, чтобы ему послали телеграмму.

The noise caused her to awake. – От шума она проснулась. (This sentence is translated by simple sentence.)

I cannot get her to finish her lessons. – Я не могу заставить ее закончить уроки.

Though the Infinitive as a rule is not used with verbs requiring prepositions, the Objective-with-the-Infinitive Construction is widely used with the preposition “for”. This construction consists of the preposition “for” plus noun in common case (or pronoun in objective case) plus Infinitive. These construction are translated into Russian by a subordinate clause, usually introduced by the conjunctions “что”, “чтобы” and at the same time the noun or pronoun of that construction together with proceeding preposition “for” is translated by a noun (or a pronoun) in the function of the subject of subordinate clause, and the infinitive is translated by a finite for of verb which is the predicate of the subordinate clause.

Eg. He waited for her to speak but she did not. – Он ждал, чтобы она заговорила, но она молчала.

Occasionally the Objective-with-the-Infinitive Construction occurs with the preposition “on” or “upon” (after the verb “to rely”).

Eg. I rely on you to come in time. – Я расчитываю, что вы придете вовремя.

I rely upon you not to go over to the opposition. – Я надеюсь, что вы не переметнетесь к оппозиции.

The gerund however is also possible here.

Eg. I rely on your coming in time. – Я расчитываю, что вы придете вовремя.

Date: 2015-01-02; view: 1051