One very important distinction in grammar that tends to get muddled is the difference between the tense of a verb and the aspect of a verb. There are only three possible tenses; the past, present and future. There are also only three possible aspects: the imperfect, perfect, and pluperfect. The imperfect is sometimes called “progressive” and the perfect is sometimes called the “simple” or “aorist” (pronounced AIR-ist).
All verbs consignify time. By consignify we mean that time always comes along with their signifying, or is concomitant with it. The tense of a verb shows its determination in this consignified time.
Because a verb consignifies time, it also carries with it an idea of action or motion. Motion or action can be seen as either ongoing or completed, and if completed, it can be viewed as completed at a moment specified by the tense, or before it. The “ongoing” actions are the in the imperfect aspect (sometimes called “progressive”). The actions signified as completed at a specified moment are “perfect”, and the actions signified as completed before the particular moment are “pluperfect”.
Notice that tense belongs primarily to the verb, but aspect belongs primarily to the tense. In other words, tense determines an essential potency of the verb, and aspect determines an essential potency of the tense.
One objection to verbs consigniying with time is that infinitive verbs do not seem to. The infinitive, however, is properly infinitive- it is defined by the privation of temporal consigification. The other ways of signifying- a noun, for instance, are not defined by the privation of time, but are defined either by the negation of time (the noun) or with no relation to time at all. The difference between negation and privation is the difference between not having a bank account, and having a bank account with no money. There is a likeness here, but not an identity.
Dave said,
April 29, 2008 at 12:35 pm
I’ve taught English, and I practice law, and up until now no one has ever explained that to me NEARLY as succinctly and clearly as you have.
So, despite my best efforts, I’ve managed to once again prove the old adage that ‘you learn something new every day’.
Alexander R Pruss said,
April 29, 2008 at 2:03 pm
That is a nice explanation.
What do you make of languages that have aspect but no tense, e.g., classical Hebrew or Ugaritic? Is there an implicit tense?
Peter said,
April 29, 2008 at 4:16 pm
You are right, this is a great explanation. I like how it mirrors St. Thomas’s Commentary on the Post. Anal. lesson 5.
I once made a diagram of this using time-reference and a horizontal bar representing an action occuring at various stages of completion. I thought it would help to ‘visualize’ the process.
It is also interesting to note the use of the words ‘perfect’, ‘imperfect’, and ‘pluperfect’. If we think of the Latin word ‘perfectum’ (completed) they are:
imperfect (imperfectum) = not completed
perfect (perfectum) = completed
pluperfect (plus quam perfectum) = more than completed
Peter said,
April 29, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Oops, I meant the Peri Hermeneias, not the Posterior Analytics. It is amazing how you can think one thing and type another.
a thomist said,
April 29, 2008 at 9:41 pm
Alexander Pruss,
Another example is Vietnamese, where all verbs are infinitive and the tense and aspect is done by adverbs.
I think the idea of implied signs is good, and it fits into a larger idea of Grammar studying the ways words signify. If something is used in to consignify time, it is a verb or a part of a verb, regardless of whether it is one or many, or if one uses an adverb or a preposition or a participle for this function.
A similar case applies to substantives- “good” is an adjective, but when it signifies as a substance it is a noun. For clarity, Grammar can distinguish between nouns and noun functions, but it doesn’t make a difference in the mode of signification.
Peter,
That’s right. There is an important differnce between Logic and Grammar, but they are close in Perihermeneas. Grammar studies the way words signify, Logic studies the relations that belong to things as known.
Note that “complete” and “perfect” are synonyms in English when one uses them per se. Sometimes we say that a paper is completed without being perfect, but when we say this we are only taking about the paper being completed in an accidental way (it has 2500 words, say, which does not complete it in its nature.) The two are etymologically identical “with a fullness” and “done through”. Both signify a whole, and so in our first understanding of the terms its is the fulfillment (another synonym) of some potency. It’s key to understanding Aristotle’s notion of act to see that the complete is the perfect- and to see that this is so in English.
Dave,
Thanks a bunch! Encouragement is always helpful