# Tenses and Aspects in Verbs



## Beejay

Hey guys, kyn's thread made me remember something I was curious about, I just thought I'd ask before I forgot about it again.

When I first began learning Japanese, I found myself completely clueless about most grammatical terminology that I may have learnt back in school, I don't know. Eventually, through reading stuff on the net, I came to understand that the 'perfective tense' referred to an action completed, not necessarily in the past. Yet, I repeatedly stumble over what I have learnt is the 'perfective' form of Japanese verbs being referred to as 'past tense'.

For example, 食べた, is the perfective form of 食べる, right? So it means the act of eating was, is or will be completed.

So what I'm asking is, is it true that 食べた doesn't specifically refer to an action completed in the past? And if so, how would one go about saying that an action will be completed in the future?

Thanks. :]


----------



## Flaminius

Hello Beejay,

I shall reply with considerable tiptoeing since I have read contradictory materials regarding this topic. 

The term perfective refers to, sorry for my draconian penchant for grammar, an aspect; not a tense (By tense I mean an absolute reference to a period in time).  Perfective aspect (It is understandably confused with perfect aspect.   I confused perfective and perfect for a long time.) narrates an event as a single whole.  When the event happens, happened or will happen matters little in the aspect level since an aspect is how the event is happening or is viewed as happening by the speaker.

In this light, it is not accurate to say "食べた, is the perfective form of 食べる" since both forms express perfective aspect.  食べた is the past tense of 食べる, which expresses the non-past tense.  Aspectually, they are both coded with perfective.

The analysis of _-ta_, however, can be stickier than that for what English would use future perfect.

1a. OK続きは彼が帰った後で話すよ
1b. *続きは彼が帰る後で話すよ
Gloss: I shall tell the rest after he will have gone.  [Clumsy locution, I know]

The verb in the _ato-de_ clause should be marked by _-ta_. Since Sentence 1b is always ungrammatical regardless of the tense, in other words when the actual his going away takes place, _-ta_ in Sentence 1a should be analysed aspectually.

Take a look at the next pair:
2a. *彼女が来た前に部屋を掃除した
2b. OK彼女が来る前に部屋を掃除した
Gloss: I cleaned my room before she came.

The ungrammatical Sentence 2a is different from 1a only be the subordinate clause marker _mae-ni_ (before).  Despite the past tense of the sentence, _-ru_ is preferred over _-ta_.  We, therefore, have to analyse them as aspects again.

Sentence 1a assumes that his going away has already been performed when speaking the rest of the juicy story takes place.  Sentence 2b betrays that the room was cleaned when her coming has not yet been performed.  I find the difference best captured by the aspectual dichotomy of perfect _-ta_ vs. imperfect _-ru_.  Usually the distinction between _-ta_ and _-ru_ is that of tense as we have seen above.  One of the conditions for the aspectual subsystem overriding the main tense system may be that these particles are used in subordinate clauses in the present examples.


----------



## Beejay

Wow. o_o

I had to read your post about 5 times, but I think I understand it. Honestly, it seems like I'd have to go to university to study grammar and linguistics to get the understanding of grammar that I seem to want!

In those examples, (after now being equipped with the proper meanings of aspect and tense) I can see how the distinction between -ta and -ru is tense. Though, the part where you said "Aspectually, they are both coded with perfective." still confuses me, I had always thought of the -ru form of verbs to be encoded with the imperfective aspect until now. If both the -ta and -ru forms represent whole events, and assuming that I'm understanding this correctly, that would invalidate (or at least, make them sound strange) many translations of Japanese to English that I've seen.

If one attempted to maintain the perfective aspect of 食べる while translating to English; this would mean that a phrase like （僕は）何を食べるか means something more like "What will I have eaten?", rather than say, "What will I eat?", right?

I have a feeling I've misunderstood the meaning of perfective aspect. -_-

Thanks for your help thus far, Flaminus. I wish I could understand this with more ease. :/


----------



## Captain Haddock

I'm not going to contradict what Flaminius said, but I will say that some linguists think Japanese has no true tenses per se; that the -ta form is always perfective, and the -ru form imperfect. It is possible to find -ru verbs performing what an English speaker would consider past, present, and future events; and -ta verbs are always demonstrating completed action.

In my own opinion, the main reason Flaminius's 2a is wrong, and 2b correct, is that Japanese doesn't relate "nested verbs" to the present, time-wise, the way English does. In the immediate context of "mae-ni", the action "kuru" is a future, uncompleted action and takes the imperfect aspect. (Whereas an English sentence would see it as a past action compared to the present and give it past tense.)


----------



## karuna

I have only one question, if we are speaking about perfect-imperfect aspect pair, and  we clarify that both 食べた and 食べる are perfective aspect, what will be the imperfective form of this verb? There should be one, right? Could it be _tabete iru/tabete ita?

_This thought came to me when trying to translate 2b example into Latvian: _Es iztīrīju istabu pirms viņas atnākšanas. _It is impossible to use a "true" verb here but the derived (_atnākšana_) noun still expresses the perfective action although it lacks any tense indications.


----------



## Flaminius

Yes, *karuna*.  I am pleased to verify your observation.  Imperfective aspect is expressed by _-iru_.  Thank you for your Latvian example by the way. 

Flam


----------



## cheshire

Flaminius said:
			
		

> In this light, it is not accurate to say "食べた, is the perfective form of 食べる" since *both forms express perfective aspect. *食べた is the past tense of 食べる, which expresses the non-past tense. Aspectually, they are both coded with perfective.


I don't know any grammar books that claim that. Is it just a slip of casual thought as I often make?

た: particle to make a verb perfective



> *Imperfective *aspect is expressed by _-iru_.


I don't think this is precise. *Perfect *aspect is expressed by -iru. (Since "imperfect verbs" denote such verbs as sabía and estaba.) 



Captain Haddock said:


> I'm not going to contradict what Flaminius said, but I will say that *some linguists think Japanese has no true tenses per se; that the -ta form is always perfective, and the -ru form imperfect.* It is possible to find -ru verbs performing what an English speaker would consider past, present, and future events; and -ta verbs are always demonstrating completed action.


The bold part is exactly my stance. There's no tense in Japanese language, only aspects.


----------



## Beejay

cheshire said:


> The bold part is exactly my stance. There's no tense in Japanese language, only aspects.


Oh dear, conflicting opinions..

Though, I do hope that -ru is considered imperfect aspect, because thinking of it as perfective aspect really messes with what I already know.


----------



## cheshire

I'm afraid this is a repitition, but you should forget the following explanation by Flaminius, unless he has something more to say. I suppose he admitted his mistake later in #6.


			
				Flaminius said:
			
		

> In this light, it is not accurate to say "食べた, is the perfective form of 食べる" since *both forms express perfective aspect. *食べた is the past tense of 食べる, which expresses the non-past tense. Aspectually, they are both coded with perfective.





			
				Beejay said:
			
		

> Though, I do hope that -ru is considered imperfect aspect, because thinking of it as perfective aspect really messes with what I already know.


According to the related Wiki article, the -ru form is neither perfective, nor perfect, nor *im*perfect aspect. It's φ (default aspect, if you will).

(1) Yo lo sabìa. 私はそれを知っていた。[imperfect]
(2) Yo lo supe. 私はそれを知った。[simple past]
(3) Yo sé. 私はそれを知っている。[simple present or present perfect]

(3) needs a little explanation. It's "simple present" when you consider 知る as 状況動詞. It's "present perfect" if 知る is an action verb.




			
				wikipedia(Grammatical Aspect) said:
			
		

> the imperfective aspect represents an event in the process of unfolding or a repeated or habitual event.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_aspect#Confusing_terminology:_perfective_vs._perfect

日本語では私はそう解釈しません。あくまで -ru 形の動詞はφ(default)形とみなし、ウィキペディアが言うような "represents an even in the process of unfolding or a repeated or habitual event" は副詞句などが受け持つと見なします。


----------



## karuna

As for me, Flaminius explanation about perfective/imperfective (as distinctive from perfect/imperfect) has been extremely insightful. Verb aspects are very neglected area in Latvian grammar as well, yet perfective/imperfective pairs mostly exists on the lexical level (by adding different prefixes), albeit not as systematically as in Russian. Until this day I was baffled with _-te iru_ usage in Japanese, which turns out to be simply the imperfective. It is probably irrelevant for other forum members (sorry, for bothering you) but this is an example where learning Japanese via non-native environment can create certain obstacles.



cheshire said:


> (1) Yo lo sabìa. 私はそれを知っていた。[imperfect] – _Es to zināju (imperfective, simple past) _
> (2) Yo lo supe. 私はそれを知った。[simple past] – _Es to uzzināju (perfective, simple past)_
> (3) Yo sé. 私はそれを知っている。[simple present or present perfect] – _Es to zinu (imperfective, simple present)_



So far it works *perfectly*.


----------



## Flaminius

Tense and aspect are so closely entwined with each other that verb forms are usually coded with both. For the sake of glossing over minute casuistry (just kidding), the term "tense-aspect" is often used in reference to a relevant meaning of a verb conjugation. Even if tense system can be found secondary for Japanese, verb forms are often able to be interpreted as having a tense. One could argue that these tenses are additionally expressed by other components of the sentence (e.g., adverbs and adjectives) but, even then, the verbal conjugation system should be one that at least accommodates, not contradicts with, a tense given from other sources.

Here is the tense-aspect system of Japanese verbs I have tried to lay out in my previous mail. This time, I employ a diagram-like style for readers' convenience. (Aspects are marked by all-caps to avoid confusion).

Main Tense-ASPECT System
1. First Division by ASPECT
/ IMPERFECTIVE: _-iru, -ita_
\ PERFECTIVE: _-ru, -ta_

2. Second Division by tense
PERFECTIVE
　_/ non-past: _-ru_
　_\ past: _-ta_

The characteristics of the first division are inherited to the second division. For instance, a verb marked by _-ta_ is coded with PERFECTIVE and past. Posts #5 (*karuna*) and #6 (*Flam*) pertain to IMPERFECTIVE entry in the first division.

Subsystem by ASPECT
/ IMPERFECT: _-ru_
\ PERFECT: _-ta_

What I have called the main system was first (I think) proposed by Machida. Here is the bibliography:
町田健 （1989） 『日本語の時制とアスペクト』 アルク

I have argued that the subsystem overrides the main system if the suffixes are used in subordinate clauses. There might be other conditions that prefer the subsystem. In any event, when a verb is to be interpreted with the subsystem, no tense can be assigned to it. If it is really necessary to situate in an absolute (more or less) temporal axis an embedded verb, the tense should be dragged from the main verb. Theories that argue for an aspect-only verb system in Japanese is equivalent to saying that only this subsystem is pertinent for Japanese verbs.


----------



## Flaminius

Two sets of observations weigh in for _-ru _being the perfective aspect; future and habitual present expressed by _-ru_ forms. First, without context, verbs ending in _-ru_ are interpreted as a reference to the future:
彼は鰺寿司を食べる
kare-wa ajizushi-o taberu.
he-TOPIC jackMackerelSushi-ACCUSATIVE eat.
He will eat a jack mackerel sushi.

Unless it is a habitual action, which I will discuss separately, the sentence should be taken to mean that the act of eating has not yet taken place. In other words, it is a reference to a future, however immanent, event. Note also 来る of 2b _supra_ #2 is also a future.

The "future by default" character is all the more evident in verbs that denote very instant changes. 知る, for example, refers to an instant change from ignorance to familiarity with a subject. The Japanese equivalent of "I know her address" is 「私は彼女の住所を知って*いる*」. 住所を知る is a very clumsy locution here. If one insists on interpreting it, the meaning is something like, "I will eventually know her address." Because the verb denotes an instant and irrevocable change, periodical repetition of the action is rather impossible to conceive. Habitual interpretation of 知る is, therefore, very hard, if not downright impossible.

Perfective aspect regards an event as a single whole. If a "whole event" is to be situated in the past, it is a past that has been fully acted upon; nothing remains to be done about it, or it has no influence on the present. If it is to be situated in the future, the whole event may be a hope, prospect, or plan with little attention to the process how the event actually happens.

If the present is to be thought upon as an infinitesimally narrow strip of time touching on both ends the past and the future extending infinitely to the opposite directions, then it is unable to house a "whole event." Even if the event is happening right now, a perfective reference should take into account an indeterminate future wherein the event comes to fruition.

I have read in a Japanese Wikipedia article that another language with salient perfective aspect, namely Russian, lets the present forms of a perfective verb express the future. I hope someone is interested enough to corroborate. 

Second, the "wholeness" of the _-ru_ form is suitable for expressing habitual present. By habitual present I mean a custom that the speaker presently embraces. If one reads newspaper everyday, Japanese has it, 「私は毎日、新聞を読む」. The temporal scheme necessary for habitual present is different from that of _-ru_ as a reference to the future. The present here is a period of time that includes the narrow strip of time that I have proposed above but it is something more than that. It stretches vaguely to the past and the future and is filled with repetition (and maybe continuation?) of the action denoted by the verb. Put differently, it is the _status quo_.

Forms with _-iru_ can also express habitual present as in 「私は毎日、新聞を読んでいる」. People seem to be using both forms without intending to differentiate any nuance most of the time. If one attempts to capture a difference by aspect analysis, however, one can find that 読んでいる has a slight nuance that reading newspaper everyday is the background, basis, foundation or reason of what the speaker is going to say next (attention to the details, therefore imperfective). For instance, I find 読んでいる more amenable than 読む to a sequel such as "So I was able to catch the small obituary of an ex-ambassador to Nepal in the 14th page."


I think I have given a long-winding answer to *Beejay*'s questions _supra_ #3 but let me iterate in a more concise paragraph. That you could translate （僕は）何を食べるか as "What will I eat?" shows that you understand the essence of the Japanese perfective _-ru_ forms. In fact, _-ru_ forms can express the remotest future provided that the future event is sure to take place. (To speak of a future event with less certitude, "guessing" forms such as _darō_ are used; e.g., 食べるだろう.) Consisting of non-past and perfective significations, the natural tendency of _-ru_ is to repair to the future and dwell in "[t]hat period of time in which our affairs prosper, our friends are true and our happiness is assured (Bierce)."


----------



## cheshire

Flaminius said:
			
		

> Main Tense-ASPECT System
> 1. First Division by ASPECT
> / IMPERFECTIVE: _-iru, -ita_
> \ PERFECTIVE: _*-ru*, -ta_


I'm in the middle of reading your penultimate post. I found one description that contradicts my observation.
人間は肺で息を*する*動物だ。​Could you tell me whether this verb する is in perfective form? I think it's in default form, not perfective, not imperfective.
Russians would choose　ヂェラチ [imperfective] instead of ズヂェラチ [perfective] for it, by the way.


----------



## Beejay

I swear, Flaminus, you're the most intelligent guy I've ever encountered, anywhere. Thanks for your incredibly indepth post.

.. Though, I may need to read it a few more times.


----------



## cheshire

時間があまりないので本来なら英語で書くところを日本語ですみません。もっとじっくり考えて後日改めて投稿します。今はとりあえず気になったところだけ。

（１）日本語の動詞の基本形には「現在形」はない、デフォルトの形は「未来形」である、とのお立場だと思います。そしてそれはロシア語の完了体から類推されたのだろうと思います。
しかし肝心なことをお忘れだと思います。ロシア語の動詞には「完了体」と「不完了体」があり、日本語の動詞の基本形だけではどちらの区別も見出せないのです。ダヴァイチェ　パイヂョーム。(Let's go.) これは　パイヂョームという完了体を使っています。解説本でも「完了体なので未来形である」と書かれることが多いです。でもこれは、教えることを優先とするので、英語の時制に親しんだ学習者にとって類推しやすいからです。「時制」という用語は、ロシア語教育にとって便宜上のものでしかない。



> Two sets of observations weigh in for _-ru _being the perfective aspect; future and habitual present expressed by _-ru_ forms. First,* without context, verbs ending in -ru are interpreted as a reference to the future:*
> 彼は鰺寿司を食べる
> kare-wa ajizushi-o taberu.
> he-TOPIC jackMackerelSushi-ACCUSATIVE eat.
> He will eat a jack mackerel sushi.
> 
> Unless it is a habitual action, which I will discuss separately, the sentence should be taken to mean that the act of eating has not yet taken place. In other words, it is a reference to a future, however immanent, event. Note also 来る of 2b _supra_ #2 is also a future.


もう少し時間をとって赤字の真偽を吟味してください。コンテクストなし、という思考実験をしてみましょう。

食べる。​これは「未来」ですか？これは私に言わせれば「時制」など問題ですらなく、まさに動詞のデフォルトの形です。Flaminius さんは「時制」を導入することによって、シンプルな説明を難しいものに変えてしまっているようです。ソシュールの有名な言葉をご存知だとおもいます。「見方こそ物を創る」 (It's viewpoints that creat objects.) フランス語で書いたのですが、これは重要な思想です。「時制」を作ることで Flaminius さん独自の世界観を創る。私は「時制」のない文法体系を想像することによって独自の世界観を持つ。私の立脚点は、余分な項目を増やさない説明をするように心がけること。

日本人は魚を好んで食べる。​わたしはあさって魚を食べる。​ 

ジャックはテロ対策ユニットから脱退する。​上の文を見れば、動詞が「時制」を決定するのではないことは明らかでしょう。動詞のほかの要素、副詞句、文脈などが決定します。「あさって」「日本人は好んで」
３番目の文は、歴史的現在 (historical present)　の例として書いたものです。過去のことを現在形で表します。
以上から、どうしても、日本語の動詞 -ru 形は「未来時制だ」とは言えません。

あとで続きを書くつもりです。


----------



## tkekte

I see. The aspect system really is kinda similar to Russian.
So could we roughly generalize it as:
知る - узнать (get to know)
知っている - знать (already have the knowledge)
食べる - съесть (to eat something (and complete the action))
食べている - есть (to be eating (still in the process of eating))
Can you confirm, cheshire? 

Russian also has something like the "habitual present", but it's expressed with the imperfective. (and with the Present Simple in English)

Я ем онигири каждый день ~ I eat onigiri every day
And the Japanese would be... 毎日お握りを食べる?


----------



## cheshire

tkekte said:


> I see. The aspect system really is kinda similar to Russian.
> So could we roughly generalize it as:
> 知る - узнать (get to know)
> 知っている - знать (already have the knowledge)
> 食べる - съесть (to eat something (and complete the action))
> 食べている - есть (to be eating (still in the process of eating))
> Can you confirm, cheshire?


узнать 知る
знать 　知っている
съесть 食べてしまう、食べきる、食べきった、食べた、食べてしまった、食べ終わる、食べ終える　(not 食べる, which is where I differ from Flaminius).
есть 食べている、食べる、食べた





> Я ем онигири каждый день ~ I eat onigiri every day
> And the Japanese would be... 毎日お握りを食べる?


毎日お握りを食べる。
毎日お握りを食べている。

Either is OK for the Russian sentence. いる is used for duration.


----------



## tkekte

cheshire said:


> съесть 食べてしまう、食べきる、食べきった、食べた、食べてしまった、食べ終わる、食べ終える　(not 食べる, which is where I differ from Flaminius).
> есть 食べている、食べる、食べた


"食べきる" - that sounds weird... eat-cut? Is the logic like "cut eating" -> "finish eating"?  Why not 食べてきる?

So I'm confused now... 食べる on its own doesn't imply to finish the action?
From Flam's words it seemed like it does. 




> 毎日お握りを食べる。
> 毎日お握りを食べている。
> 
> Either is OK for the Russian sentence. いる is used for duration.


Maybe the second phrase could be better rendered into Russian as:
Я поедаю онигири каждый день.
If it's supposed to emphasize the duration...

Then there is also:
Я съедаю онигири каждый день.
Which I'm not even sure how to put into English while keeping the proper shade of meaning ... "each day I complete eating an onigiri".
In Japanese, could that be 毎日お握りを食べてしまう?

I am trying to work through all those possibilities to understand the differences in Japanese better.


----------



## cheshire

> "食べきる" - that sounds weird... eat-cut? Is the logic like "cut eating" -> "finish eating"?  Why not 食べてきる?


I'm going to translate my post in #15 later, I'm sorry I don't have enough time for it right now. Then you'll know what's my claim.

きる in 食べきる means "finish -ing." It's exactly the same meaning as съесть.　食べて切る means "eat and (then) cut."
-きる　is an enclitic that can be attached to about any action verb to mean a completed action.

読みきる：　プラチタチ​
書ききる：　ナピサチ​ 


			
				tkekte said:
			
		

> So I'm confused now... 食べる on its own doesn't imply to finish the action?
> From Flam's words it seemed like it does.


I'm positive it doesn't imply any aspect on its own without context and adverbial phrases.

In Russian every verb has a distinction of perfective and imperfective, but in Japanese we don't have.

Imagine there's no tense, no perfective/imperfective distinction in Japanese. There would be at all if you bother to think about it.


----------



## tkekte

I think I understand. Japanese verbs can be inherently perfective, inherently imperfective, or none.
shiru - inherently imperfective (to acquire knowledge)
wakaru - inherently perfective (to have knowledge)
taberu - neither
Is that right?
And if so, would wakatteiru mean something like "to be understanding"? (ie, in the process of trying to grasp the meaning of something .. so kinda synonymous with "learning"?)

Btw, what's manabu's inherent aspect? This is apparently important information about verbs that's omitted in dictionaries. :<

She is learning to cook ~ kanojo ha chouri shite koto wo manandeiru ? Or manabu? (there's probably other mistakes too )


----------



## tkekte

On second thought, it seems that wakaru is inherently aspectless also...
Perhaps it's just "inherently perfective" and "aspectless"? I can't think of an inherently imperfective verb. sawagu? iku? naku?


----------



## Captain Haddock

tkekte said:


> I think I understand. Japanese verbs can be inherently perfective, inherently imperfective, or none.
> shiru - inherently imperfective (to acquire knowledge)
> wakaru - inherently perfective (to have knowledge)
> taberu - neither
> Is that right?



Most Japanese grammarians now put verbs in four categories depending how their tenses and aspects work: stative, durative, punctual, and "4th group".

• Stative verbs like wakaru indicate a present/future state with their present tense, and the shite-iru form is _usually_ impossible.

• Durative verbs indicate general or future action with their present tense, and continuing or completed action with their shite-iru form. Example: taberu.

• Punctual form indicate momentary action with their dictionary form, and a resulting state in their shite-iru form. Shiru, meaning "to learn", is usually used in its shitte-iru form, meaning "to know".



> And if so, would wakatteiru mean something like "to be understanding"?



That form is rather an exception, and not used too often it seems to me.



> Btw, what's manabu's inherent aspect? This is apparently important information about verbs that's omitted in dictionaries. :<



I believe 学ぶ, meaning to study or learn, is durative. 
学ぶ = I study, will study
学んだ = studied
学んでいる = am studying, have studied



> She is learning to cook ~ kanojo ha chouri shite koto wo manandeiru ? Or manabu? (there's probably other mistakes too )



料理を学んでいる (ryouri-o manandeiru) is probably fine, although naratteiru is a more common verb in this instance.


----------



## almostfreebird

Quote:
                                                 ＜And if so, would wakatteiru mean something like "to be understanding"?＞

In this case, わかっている means "already know" or "know better"


Mother: 勉強しないと落第するよ（benkyoh shinaito rakudai suruyo） [If you don't study, you will flunk.]

Son:  （言われなくても）わかっているよ or　わかってるよ（iwarenàkutemo wakàtteruyo） [I (already) know that without your advice.] In other words.[I know that. you don't have to rub it in.]

à is accent.


----------



## Flaminius

cheshire said:


> wikipedia(Grammatical Aspect) said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the imperfective aspect represents an event in the process of unfolding or a repeated or habitual event.
> 
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_aspect#Confusing_terminology:_perfective_vs._perfect
> 
> 日本語では私はそう解釈しません。あくまで -ru 形の動詞はφ(default)形とみなし、ウィキペディアが言うような "represents an even in the process of unfolding or a repeated or habitual event" は副詞句などが受け持つと見なします。
Click to expand...




			
				Translation by Flam said:
			
		

> This is not my interpretation regarding Japanese.  In my view, _-ru_ form is the φ (default) form of the verb.  What "represents an even in the process of unfolding or a repeated or habitual event," to quote Wikipedia, is the adverbial clause or other components of a sentence.



According to *cheshire*'s theory, it is the job of adjunct components to furnish tense for sentences whose main verb takes the _-ru_ form.  Also, the _-ru_ form has no say in determining the tense of an utterance.  I disagree with the second statement but the first statement needs more attention than I paid (virtually zero) in my previous responsa.

Here are three nouns that can be used as an adverbial component in an utterance; 昨日 (yesterday), 毎日 (everyday), 明日 (tomorrow).



cheshire said:


> 上の文を見れば、動詞が「時制」を決定するのではないことは明らかでしょう。動詞のほかの要素、副詞句、文脈などが決定します。





			
				Translation by Flam said:
			
		

> The above sentences make it obvious that it is not the verb that determines the tense [of an utterance].  It is done by non-verb elements such as adverbial clauses and context.


Since 昨日, 毎日 and 明日  are all adverbial clauses that refer to time, let them determine the tense of an utterance they participate as follows:

1. 毎日、タイ料理を食べる。 OR I eat Thai food everyday.This is what I have called "habitual present."  Since the practise of eating Thai food is a current custom, the tense of the utterance is the present.​2. 明日、タイ料理を食べる。 OR I will eat Thai food tomorrow.Because "tomorrow" belongs to the future, the utterance is a future reference.​3. *昨日、タイ料理を食べる。No.  This sentence is ungrammatical.  One way to rescue it without removing 昨日 is to replace _-ru_ with _-ta_.​Why is Sentence 3 ungrammatical if the _-ru_ form has no say in determining the tense of an utterance?  Why an expression of the past cannot co-exist with _-ru_, if it is "the φ (default) form" that gives free rein of determining the tense to "non-verb elements such as adverbial clauses and context"?

This demonstration has produced an ungrammatical sentence because it was based on wrong premises.  A verb with _-ru_ does provide a tense for the sentence it takes part.  Being unable to construct a more simple and more consistent theory, I reproduce my take on the relevant tense-aspect expressed by verb forms (_supra_ #11):


> 2. Second Division by tense
> PERFECTIVE
> _/ non-past: _-ru_
> _\ past: _-ta_


----------



## karuna

tkekte said:


> On second thought, it seems that wakaru is inherently aspectless also...
> Perhaps it's just "inherently perfective" and "aspectless"? I can't think of an inherently imperfective verb. sawagu? iku? naku?



I believe that according to the system as Flaminius explains it, all Japanese verbs in -ru form are inherently perfective in the same way as they are understood in Russian. There are some quirks like the habitual action which takes -ru form in Japanese but imperfective verbs in Russian. But you already gave the example where perfective verb can also be used. I think it mainly depends on speaker's perspective – whether I want to give more importance to the repetition that merges together as an unending action, or to each instance of completed action.



Flaminius said:


> I have read in a Japanese Wikipedia article that another language with salient perfective aspect, namely Russian, lets the present forms of a perfective verb express the future. I hope someone is interested enough to corroborate.



I could not read the article but if I come to think about the Russian grammar, then Russian perfective verbs are indeed quite similar in this regard. They don't have the present tense and the endings that normally would indicate the present tense for imperfective verbs, are used for the future tense.



Captain Haddock said:


> • Punctual form indicate momentary action with their dictionary form, and a resulting state in their shite-iru form. Shiru, meaning "to learn", is usually used in its shitte-iru form, meaning "to know".



This classification is also interesting as it could be another area where overlapping occurs. I was reading about achievement verbs that form the resultive state with -te iru with the example (a) _bōru ga ochite iru – _the ball has fallen. Apparently it indicates the perfective aspect. But it seems to be contradictory with my dictionary examples: 1) _hi ga ochite, kuraku natta _– the sun went down and it became dark(perfective) and the only example with -te iru: 2) _kanojo wa ninki ga ochite iru _– her popularity is waning (imperfective). Is the example (a) simply an anomaly or is there something more to it?


----------



## Flaminius

karuna said:
			
		

> (a) _bōru ga ochite iru – _the ball has fallen. Apparently it indicates the perfective aspect. (...) Is the example (a) simply an anomaly or is there something more to it?


You find it contradictory to what you are familiar with because Sentence (a) is not the perfective but the perfect.  Note that the English perfect is NOT the perfective we talk here.
_Bōru ga ochite iru _notices that there is a ball on the floor (for example) and presumes the reason of the ball's being there is that it has fallen from somewhere.  In a more general terminology, the aspect is resultative, which is a subcategory of the imperfective (note the attention to the process how the action happened).


----------



## tkekte

"-te iru" sounds really weird in the role of "has done"... Maybe it's a mistake? It's supposed to be a progressive form.. boru ga ochite iru -> the ball is falling.


----------



## karuna

Flaminius said:


> You find it contradictory to what you are familiar with because Sentence (a) is not the perfective but the perfect.  Note that the English perfect is NOT the perfective we talk here.
> _Bōru ga ochite iru _notices that there is a ball on the floor (for example) and presumes the reason of the ball's being there is that it has fallen from somewhere.  In a more general terminology, the aspect is resultative, which is a subcategory of the imperfective (note the attention to the process how the action happened).



Thanks Flam, for the explanation. My first instinct was to translate it as _bumba ir nokritusi _because the perfect imperfective _bumba ir kritusi _means that the ball has undergone the process of falling but its current state is irrelevant. It is hard to imagine the context where this particular sentence would be used but with many other verbs that is correct way of speaking, for example: _viņš ir miris _(not: _nomiris_) _– kare wa shinde iru _(he is dead/he has died)_._


----------



## Captain Haddock

karuna said:


> I was reading about achievement verbs that form the resultive state with -te iru with the example (a) _bōru ga ochite iru – _the ball has fallen. Apparently it indicates the perfective aspect. But it seems to be contradictory with my dictionary examples: 1) _hi ga ochite, kuraku natta _– the sun went down and it became dark(perfective) and the only example with -te iru: 2) _kanojo wa ninki ga ochite iru _– her popularity is waning (imperfective). Is the example (a) simply an anomaly or is there something more to it?



For starters, under this aspect-based categorization, 落ちる is a momentary (punctual) verb. The ta form indicates a past action, and the te-iru form indicates a current resulting state from the action.

_hi ga ochite, kuraku natta _ — I don't see why that's strange. "The sun set, and it became dark."

(a) _bōru ga ochite iru_ — Again, perfectly fine. The ball is on the ground, having recently fallen.

_kanojo wa ninki ga ochite iru _ — In this case, I _think_, because a slightly different meaning of 落ちる is involved, it becomes a durative verb, and the te-iru form indicates continuous action. 

As a side note, when transitive-intransitive verb pairs are involved, the transitive one tends to be durative, and the intransitive one tends to be punctual.

太郎は木を倒している。 Taro is now felling a tree. [durative]
木が倒れている。 A tree is on the ground. [punctual, indicating result]

You can also express the resultant state with transitive verb + aru:
木が倒してある。



			
				tkekte said:
			
		

> "-te iru" sounds really weird in the role of "has done"... Maybe it's a mistake? It's supposed to be a progressive form.. boru ga ochite iru -> the ball is falling.



No, it's important to realize that the te-iru aspect only expresses progressive action for a subset of verbs.


----------



## Flaminius

I just thought that fellow foreros y foreras may be interested in;
A Study of "V-te iru" in Japanese by Taeko Tomioka
http://homepage3.nifty.com/park/aspect.htm.

Discussing the verb aspects as lexical properties that Captain Haddock has kindly introduced us to, this article accounts for ambiguity in the interpretation of "V-te iru" by the concept 'subject change.'


----------



## cheshire

This is a short response to #24 by Flaminius. I may post later, even thought it might be some months away.


> 3. 昨日、タイ料理を食べる。No. This sentence is *un*grammatical. One way to rescue it without removing ð“ú is to replace _-ru_ with _-ta_.


No, that sentence is completely normal and grammatical, although the situation where it can appear is quite limited. It's called "historical present." It's not peculiar to Japanese language, and you must know it.

The sheer example you've given confirm my claim that there's no tense in Japanese that can clearly be signified by verbs alone. Your sentence 1-3 is about present, future and past. You're misled by the meanings of adverbial phrases and ascribe it to the verbs.

You're giving verbs of Japanese too much favor; If you're talking about French verbs, it's due because it has distinct forms that conform to a certain conjugation rule. When you find a desinence in a verb, you can say it's a future "tense" because it has the desinence "-ra." Japanese, in turn, has no visible marker that clearly expresses "tense" element. [

Of course you could claim that not a verb alone, but a combination of a verb and adverbial phrases can be rightfully analyzed as what's called an "aspect", but introducing tense to Japanese grammar only complicates the matter.


----------



## almostfreebird

*昨日、タイ料理を食べる。(I will eat Thai food yesterday.)*
*去年、タイ料理を食べる。(I will eat Thai food last year.)*

Those sentences sound really normal if you have a Time Machine.




PS.  No offense intended. Just that sentence reminded me of the book entitled Now Wait for Last Year written by Philip K. Dick. In it people are moving in time forwards or backwards across parallel worlds by the power of the drug.


----------



## cheshire

Tomioka's article is great, I learned some new terms.

A question you might have: Does the Japanese dichtonomy of punctual/durative verbs apply one-on-one to the Russian distinction of perfective/imperfective? No, that's tricky but they are different.


Tomioka's article is great, I learned some new terms.

A question you might have: Does the Japanese dichtonomy of punctual/durative verbs apply one-on-one to the Russian distinction of perfective/imperfective? No, that's tricky but they are different.


富岡さんの論文を拝見しました。とても優れた論文だと思いました。ただ、ひとつ重要な点を見逃されているのは、いくつか（結構多く）の例文が、（１）現在進行形の意味、（２）現在完了の意味、のどちらにも取り*うる*、という点を指摘されなかったことです。このことは当フォーラムの日本人回答者についてもそう言えます。もちろん、話者の意図、あるいは文脈から、どちらかに決めている、もしくは自動的に決まる場合もあります。ですが文脈なしの例文としてノンネイティブに提示するのですから、（１）、（２）のどちらにも解釈しうる、と但し書きをしておく必要があります。例示のために、多くあるそういった例のなかからひとつだけ示しておきます。



			
				Tomioka's article said:
			
		

> [17] Haha wa mado o shimeteiru. ―― continuative
> 母は窓を閉めている。
> My mother is closing the window.


これを読んだノンネイティブの人は、この文の解釈は continuative でしかありえない、現在完了の意味ではありえない、と誤って理解してしまいます。

ともあれ、富岡さんの論文は例文それぞれ図示されていて、すごくイメージしやすく、とても優れたものです。おかげですっかり頭の中が整理されました。

やはり、「日本語には時制はない」としたほうが単純明快に説明できます。

仮説１：すべての -iru　形は（１）現在進行の意味（現在進行形、と書かないことに注意）と（２）現在完了の意味に解釈され*うる*。

仮説２：動詞には durative と punctual の2分法を基本とした2種類の動詞がある。後者の動詞は（２）現在進行の意味では解釈されえない。

以上たったの２つの仮説だけで、-iru に関してすべてを説明できたとは思いませんか？これ以上単純明快で真であろう解説はありますか？


----------



## cheshire

本来なら編集機能を使って直前の自分の投稿を編集すべきなのですが、このパソコンでは編集をするたびに、せっかく文字化けしなかった投稿が文字化けしてしまうので、一回編集しようとしたら2度手間になります。新たに投稿することをお許しください。

-iru 形には2つの仮説で済むと書きました。-iru の語義素はたったのひとつです。現在との関わりを有する、持続です。これは「時制」とみなすこともできます。-iru/-ita　は日本語のもつ時制としてもいいでしょう。 アスペクトとみなすこともできます。

ロシア語の完了体・不完了体の区別は日本語の punctual/durative と一致しません。前者は「動作が終わったか、そうでないか」が問題なのに対し後者は「一瞬か、そうでないか」が問題なのです。


----------



## Flaminius

cheshire said:


> やはり、「日本語には時制はない」としたほうが単純明快に説明できます。
> 
> 仮説１：すべての -iru　形は（１）現在進行の意味（現在進行形、と書かないことに注意）と（２）現在完了の意味に解釈され*うる*。
> 
> 仮説２：動詞には durative と punctual の2分法を基本とした2種類の動詞がある。後者の動詞は（２）現在進行の意味では解釈されえない。


冨岡さんの論文は「る」形と対照しながら「ている」形のアスペクトを分析する研究です。私が紹介した非過去の「る」は、「た」との対照で時制が確認される 形態素です。「ている」形の分析に時制が導入されていないことをもって、「日本語には時制はない」と主張することはできません。

仮説１と 仮説２は冨岡さんの論文の要旨ですね。テンス・アスペクトに関する町田説の部分的精緻化として理解できます。2つの見解をあわせると、現象を次のように説 明できます。形態論の立場から接辞-iruが非完結相を信号することが明らかです。非完結相の下位分類として進行相と結果相が存在します。さて、動詞には 語義に基づいて、解釈の許されるアスペクトを制限する機能があります。これが原因で、接辞-iruが動詞テ形に接続する場合、進行相または結果相で解釈す ることが不可能になることがあります[訳語はWikipedia日本語版に従った]。



> 富岡さんの論文を拝見しました。とても優れた論文だと思いました。ただ、ひとつ重要な点を見逃されているのは、いくつか（結構多く）の例文が、（１）現在進行形の意味、（２）現在完了の意味、のどちらにも取り*うる*、 という点を指摘されなかったことです。


全ての例文に注意書きが付いていないことは確かです。ただし、「ている」形の両義性については 3.3および3.4節、結論(1)と(4)と(5)項で動詞の分類ごとに分析がなされています。これ以前に論ぜられた例文についても遡及的に理解すべきで しょう。


cheshire said:


> ロシア語の完了体・不完了体の区別は日本語の punctual/durative と一致しません。前者は「動作が終わったか、そうでないか」が問題なのに対し後者は「一瞬か、そうでないか」が問題なのです。


私はロシア語と日本語のアスペクトの比較についてコメントするつもりはありませんが、*karuna*さんが指摘している両言語の共通点は、ロシア語の完了体対不完了体および日本語の「る」形対「ている」形の間に観察されるものです。もっとも習慣的現在の取り扱いには相異があるのですが。punctual/durativeは「ている」形をより精緻に解釈する際に有効な概念です。


----------



## Flaminius

cheshire said:


> No, that sentence is completely normal and grammatical, although the situation where it can appear is quite limited. It's called "historical present." It's not peculiar to Japanese language, and you must know it.


 
Historical present is expressed by present (or non-past, default, unmarked or whatever you will) verb forms and is used for a vivid narration of past events. Note that the very definition implies that historical present is an exceptional function of the present (or non-past etc.) and an exceptional expression of the past. For a more mundane —thus less marked— reference to the past, a separate form dedicated to the past (or the perfect or whatever is the appropriate term for respective languages) is used. 

For our Japanese sentences, 明日行く and 毎日行く are unmarked references to the future and the present, while 「5月6日。美容院に行く」 is rather a marked utterance no matter what term we shall employ to call its function. It is also more marked than a regular past reference such as 「5月6日。美容院に行った」. Even if historical present should be ultimately factored in for the analysis of the verb system of any languages, I find it justifiable to set it aside while a more general explanation on the system is established. Historical present will play, if any, only a peripheral rôle in the grammatical analysis of _-ru_.

Since our judgements are at odds regarding 「昨日、タイ料理を食べる」, I had to devise a more salient example, which led me to think what conditions need to be met for an instance of _-ru_ to be interpreted as historical present. Consider the following examples first:
1a. 先週の日曜日にタイ料理を食べるよ。
1b. 先週の日曜日にタイ料理を食べたよ。

Sentence 1a is a very bad sentence. Even if 「昨日、タイ料理を食べる」 could be interpreted as historical past (though I personally don't believe so), this sentence is even harder to get that interpretation. Needless to say, both sentences are ungrammatical if viewed as unmarked references to the past. Comparing 1a with 「昨日、タイ料理を食べる」, I realise that the former has the adverbial reference to the past more firmly incorporated in the sentence. In other words, I can see that 昨日 can be understood more separate from the sentence than 先週の日曜日に. The more firmly a reference to the past is incorporated in the sentence, the more likely it is to be interpreted as a bad sentence. This goes to show that what we are discussing here is a present tense, however special it is. Sentence 1a is ungrammatical because the past adverbial contradicts with the expectation of _-ru_, which, as I don't seem to be tired of pointing out, is a non-past marker.

The next condition seems at a glance contradictory with the first one. Consider the following sentence:
ジャックはテロ対策ユニットから脱退する (_supra_ #15: *cheshire*)
Not provided with any context nor any clue as to who this Jack person may be, I cannot understand the sentence as historical present. The most likely interpretation I'd choose is a future reference. Certain types of literature, such as diary, seem to provide a framework wherein present forms are gratuitously understood as historical present. It is so, presumably, because diary is always a collection of past events. A more versatile way to provide the framework of historical present is to explicitly mark with the past tense an event that happened immediately before the historical present. Note again that the sentence itself cannot be marked by past references. The above sentence may become historical present if a context as below is supplied beforehand:
三日前から急激に同僚の敵意が増した。 

Subsequent sentences as below surely consolidate the historical interpretation:
急に自由になる時間が増える。解放感の中で数日を過ごす。倦怠が忍び寄る。

Given the two conditions above, historical present is a function of the present wherein past events are evoked to the here-and-now as the speaker proceeds in his narrative. The listeners are suggested to make believe that the story is actually taking place in the present moments. Even if a past framework needs to be established beforehand lest the present form should get more regular interpretations, the narrative needs to be as free as possible of words that anchor events in the time that has already come to pass. It is not only to keep the vividness of the story but also required by the present tense that the verbs are cast into. In the final analysis, historical present is more a figure of speech than a grammatical function.

Whatever the position of historical present may be, we have gathered here enough evidence that _-ru_ is loaded with a tense function.



> You're giving verbs of Japanese too much favor; If you're talking about French verbs, it's due because it has distinct forms that conform to a certain conjugation rule. When you find a desinence in a verb, you can say it's a future "tense" because it has the desinence "-ra." Japanese, in turn, has no visible marker that clearly expresses "tense" element.


I contend that _-ru_ is coded with both an aspect and a tense. If you need an example, the English _-(e)s_ can express two categories at the same time; person (third) and number (singular).



cheshire said:


> -iru 形には2つの仮説で済むと書きました。-iru の語義素はたったのひとつです。現在との関わりを有する、持続です。これは「時制」とみなすこともできます。-iru/-ita　は日本語のもつ時制としてもいいでしょう。 アスペクトとみなすこともできます。
> I have written that two hypotheses suffice for the -iru form. The -iru has only one sememe, which is a continuative with connections to the present. This can be regarded as a "tense." The -iru/-ita can be regarded as the Japanese tense system. One can also regard it as the aspect system. [My translation]


I doubt if further analysis is not possible for _-iru_. In comparison _-ita_ is "a continuative with connections to the past" to borrow your terms. I am not sure why you are more worried about considering _-ru_ vs. _-ta _as an opposition of tenses than you are with _-iru_ vs. _-ita_ here. If both pairs can be construed as opposing tenses, then we can extract _-i-_ as the imperfective aspect marker [More accurately, the imperfective marker may be _-te-i-_ but I don't intend to pursue this discussion further in this thread. All the same, the difference between, e.g., たべている and たべていた is morphologically _-ru_ vs. _-ta_ and semantically non-past vs. past]. The perfective aspect, therefore, is signified by the absence of _-i-_ or whatever the right formulation is. I find the absence of a symbol for the perfective quite economical use of symbols. It is possible because perfective and imperfective can be defined as the negation of each other. As can be observed in both pairs たべている vs. たべていた and たべる vs. たべた, the opposition of _-ru_ and _-ta_ is that of tenses; non-past and past.


----------

