# Tense



## curius

Hello all,

I'm in a quest to find the original definition and name of the tense which in most european languages takes this form: _present of to have + verb_.

I mean original as in when the tenses were created which I guess it was classical (upper class) roman Rome.

I am aware that latin did not have auxiliaries so were there an equivalent?


----------



## Testing1234567

Which language do you speak?

I'm only interested in Romance languages (languages derived from Latin), which do not constitute all European languages (there are still Uralic languages and Germanic languages and many more).

French, Italian, Romansh, and Sardinian use _present of to have + verb_ for the *past* tense, while other romance languages use it for the *present perfect* tense. This phenomenon is present in English as well: I have sung, I have seen, etc.

I assume that you mean the *present perfect* tense.

Note that Latin did *not* have this form of "have + verb". I would say that this form is created when Latin evolved to become *Vulgar Latin*.

Portuguese *hei amado* (old) comes from Vulgar Latin **aio amatu*. Latin used another form *amavi*, which developed into Vulgar Latin as **amai*, which became Portuguese *amei*.


----------



## Scholiast

Greetings


Testing1234567 said:


> Note that Latin did *not* have this form of "have + verb". I would say that this form is created when Latin evolved to become *Vulgar Latin*.


L&S (s.v. _habeo_, II.C.2) show instances from Cicero (mostly letters or dialogues), Caesar and Sallust of _habere_ + past participle in this kind of sense, and conclude "From this use is derived the _compound perf._ of the Romance languages".

Σ


----------



## Riverplatense

I'd say if you want to use a general term you should avoid all words which include hints for verbal aspects. Italian _ho scritto_ and Spanish _he escrito_ don't necessarily allude to the same event. If you take German, it's even more difficult, also the terms sometimes used in German itself _Perfekt_ (_ich habe geschrieben_) and _Imperfekt _or _Präteritum _(_ich schrieb_) are not clear or precise at all. Therefore I prefer to speak about simple or compound preterite.


----------



## curius

So the classical grammarians did not have an equivalent tense for this?


Riverplatense, yes I am aware that the use of the less common tenses these days is in a state of near anarchy. If it were only down to national definitions it would be a relief. From my experience, in some places, each person has their own intuitive perception of its meaning. When asked they say the definition they learnt from school. Their usage, however, says different.


----------



## curius

So, for what purpose did Cicero, Caesar and Sallust used this tense?

Were they grammatically consistent?


----------



## apmoy70

In Modern Greek the periphrastic Perfect tense is expressed by the Present tense of the verb "have" (marked by different sets of suffixes depending on person and number) combined with the aorist infinitive.
In Classical Greek the Perfect tense was more complicated, with features like reduplication (which was the mark of completed action), or temporal augment (if the verb began with a short vowel) + Perfective suffix «-κα» -ka e.g the verb «λύω» lúō in present indicative (I loose, unbind) becomes «λέ (reduplication)-λυ-κα (suffix marking 1st person sing. perfect indicative)» lélukă (I have loosed) in perfect indicative.
The tense is called *«Παρακείμενος»* (MoGr pronunciation=) [paɾaˈcimenos] (masc.), Părăkeímĕnŏs (masc.) in Classical Greek < compound; Classical prefix, preposition, and adverb *«πάρᾰ» páră* and *«παραί» păraí* --> _besides, by, from, next to, alongside, against_ (PIE *prh₂-/*preh₂- _beside, by_) + Present tense 1st person mediopassive voice masc. participle *«κείμενος» keímĕnŏs* of the deponent v. *«κεῖμαι» keîmai* --> _to lie, be somewhere, happen_ (PIE *kei- _to lie, rest_).
«Παρακείμενος» is literally translated into English as _the one lying nearby_.


----------



## Testing1234567

Scholiast said:


> L&S (s.v. _habeo_, II.C.2) show instances from Cicero (mostly letters or dialogues), Caesar and Sallust of _habere_ + past participle in this kind of sense, and conclude "From this use is derived the _compound perf._ of the Romance languages".



My apology.


----------



## Scholiast

Greetings once more


curius said:


> So, for what purpose did Cicero, Caesar and Sallust used this tense?


As I mentioned in #3, in Cicero it is preponderantly in the letters and dialogues, where one might _a priori_ expect a greater degree of colloquialism than in the studiedly rhetorical speeches. I have not made a study of this as regards Sallust, but a glance at Meusel's _Lexicon Caesarianum_ offers more than 20 instances in Caesar, with more from the "ethnographic digressions" than the main narrative of _BG_, and greater proportionate frequency in _BC_ than _BG_, particularly _BC_ 3. This all supports the supposition that the periphrastic _habere_ + participle "tense" was already established in the _Umgangssprache_ in the 1st cent. BC, as neither the ethnographical material in _BG_ nor _BC_ as a whole, particularly towards its end, shows the same degree of fine stylistic control exhibited in most of _BG.
_
Testing1234567 had no need to apologise - in a way I was supporting what he was contending, though in this context, _Umgangssprache _may be an apter term than "Vulgar" Latin.

Σ


----------



## berndf

curius said:


> So, for what purpose did Cicero, Caesar and Sallust used this tense?


They weren't tenses but ad-hoc constructs. The grammaticalization of the periphrastic forms with _habeo _as tenses (perfect and future) occurred in VL.


----------



## curius

Scholiast, could you please show us some of those instances so we can try and find out why he used the composed form and not the simple past?


----------



## curius

berndf said:


> They weren't tenses but ad-hoc constructs. The grammaticalization of the periphrastic forms with _habeo _as tenses (perfect and future) occurred in VL.



So, are there equivalents in classical latin?


----------



## berndf

The reasons why the forms emerged here different:
For _habeo_+ppl (Latin _habeo amatus_ > Italian _ho amato_) the reason was that the Latin perfect was ambiguous: it could have preterite and could have present perfect meaning (_amaverim _=_ I loved _or _I have loved_). In VL it got preterite-only meaning (the Italian reflex is the passato remoto) and _habere_+ppl filled the missing meaning of present perfect. The fact that in modern Romance languages the distinction is blurred again in non-literary language is a different story.

For the infinitive+_habeo _future (Latin _amare habeo_ > Italian _amerò_) the reason is different: The Latin future is similar in form to the imperfect. For most forms they differ only in one vowel. With the VL simplifications of the endings the two forms could not be distinguished any more and one of the two needed replacement.


----------



## Scholiast

Greetings once again


curius said:


> Scholiast, could you please show us some of those instances so we can try and find out why he used the composed form and not the simple past?


It would be tedious, and I believe against Forum rules, simply to give a list. So here is a handful, of which, make what you may:
Caes. _BG _I 44.12: "id se ab ipsis per eorum nuntios _*compertum habere*_" : "[he said that] *he had already found this out* from themselves, through their own envoys";
Caes. _BC_ 3.62.4 "ad eas munitiones Caesar Lentulum Marcellinum quaestorem cum legione VIIII. *positum habebat*" : "At these fortifications C. *had already stationed* Lentulus...with the ninth legion";
Cic. _Fam._ 10.24.3, "quantum in acie tironi sit committendum, nimium saepe _*expertum habemus*_" : "How much reliance in the front line can be placed on a novice, *we have too often learned*". It may or may not be telling that this is Cic. actually quoting Plancus.
The Sallust text cited by L&S (_Jug. _10.1) is an interesting example: it's Micipsa, on his deathbed, addressing Jugurtha. Sall. was a good enough Latinist (and dramatist) to put into a foreigner's mouth words that were "not quite proper" Latin.

Σ

Edit/afterthought: Sall. _Cat._ 58.1 has Cicero pronounce "id _*compertum habeo*_". This may be Sallust's riff on Cic.'s pompous rhetoric, or it may indeed suggest (along with Caes. _BG _I cited above) that _compertum habere_ is already a phrase in general currency. Either way, it would offer further support for my general notion.


----------



## Testing1234567

AMO TAVLAS xd

Tens Pres Imperf Future Perf Pluperfect Fu-perf PerfectII
LATIN AMO AMABAM AMABO AMAVI AMAVERAM AMAVERO "HABEO AMATUM"
V.L. [amo] [amava] [amare aj] [amaj] [amara] [avr aj amaj] < "HABERE HABEO AMATUM" [aj amai]
O.F. /ajmə/ /ajmajs/ /ajməraj/ /ajmaj/ /ajmərajs/ /awraj ajme/ /aj aime/
Fr-writ aime aimais aimerai aimai aimerais "aurai aimé" (Pluperfect became conditional) "ai aimé"
Fr-pron /εm/ /εmε/ /εmre/ /εme/ /εmrε/ /ore εme/ /e εme/

Tens Pres Imperf Future Perf Pluperfect Fu-perf PerfectII
LATIN AMO AMABAM AMABO AMAVI AMAVERAM AMAVERO "HABEO AMATUM"
V.L. [amo] [amava] [amare aj] [amaj] [amaria] [avr aj amatu] < "HABERE HABEO AMATUM" [aj amatu]
Sp. amo amaba amaré amé amaría "habré amado" "hé amado"

Tens Pres Imperf Future Perf Pluperfect Fu-perf PerfectII
LATIN AMO AMABAM AMABO AMAVI AMAVERAM AMAVERO "HABEO AMATUM"
V.L. [amo] [amava] [amare aw] [amaj] [amara] [avr aw amatu] < "HABERE HABEO AMATUM" [aw amatu]
It. amo amavo amerò amai amerei "avrò amato" "ho amado"


----------



## berndf

And, do you tell us why you posted these tables? (slightly confused)


----------



## Testing1234567

To show the developments of the forms (and their equivalents) which contain "habeo".


----------



## Scholiast

Greetings once more


Testing1234567 said:


> To show the developments of the forms (and their equivalents) which contain "habeo".


I'm sorry, but I am still as perplexed as berndf (#16).
Σ


----------



## Hulalessar

Testing1234567 said:


> ...when Latin evolved to become *Vulgar Latin*.



"Vulgar Latin" is often taken to mean "Late Latin", but they are not equivalent. "Old Latin" was followed by "Classical Latin" which in turn was followed by "Late Latin" and each of them was the written form of the language, though Late Latin shows signs of being influenced by speech so far as we can tell. Vulgar Latin refers to the vernacular language spoken in antiquity.


----------



## Scholiast

Greetings


Hulalessar said:


> "Vulgar Latin" is often taken to mean "Late Latin", but they are not equivalent. "Old Latin" was followed by "Classical Latin" which in turn was followed by "Late Latin" and each of them was the written form of the language, though Late Latin shows signs of being influenced by speech so far as we can tell. Vulgar Latin refers to the vernacular language spoken in antiquity.


Of course this is - in the main - right. It was "classical" Latin that was if anything an artificial creation of the 2nd-1st centuries BC intellectuals. But it might be better to think of "vernacular Latins", plural, since there were a range of Latin dialects and presumably accents since before what we know as Latin assumed its literary and classical form.

Σ


----------



## Ben Jamin

Scholiast said:


> Greetings
> 
> Of course this is - in the main - right. It was "classical" Latin that was if anything an artificial creation of the 2nd-1st centuries BC intellectuals.
> Σ


I think that calling Classical Latin artificial is both judgemental and unnecessary.  Why should a language creation done by some groups of people be better than that done by another group. Segments of society develop their own sociolects and any of them is as natural as any other.


----------



## Hulalessar

Scholiast said:


> Of course this is - in the main - right. It was "classical" Latin that was if anything an artificial creation of the 2nd-1st centuries BC intellectuals. But it might be better to think of "vernacular Latins", plural, since there were a range of Latin dialects and presumably accents since before what we know as Latin assumed its literary and classical form.



I agree to the extent that all written languages can be considered to a degree artificial, some more than others. Many written languages start off being rather rambling and resembling speech, but soon get "ordered". You reach a stage where writing has complex subordination rarely found in speech. Then it tends to crystalise and lose touch with everyday speech.

Vulgar Latin must have had many varieties over time and space, some of which may have been influenced by, or even be considered to be, non-Latin Italic languages. That no doubt in part explains some of the present day differences between the Romance languages, especially in Italy.


----------



## curius

apmoy70, your post is detailed enough and I'm sure it took a bit to compose. Nevertheless I tried to read it a few times and I still cannot make head or tails of it. When it was first established, the present perfect was used for what exactly?

Scholiast, thank you for excerpts. The use of the 'we have too often learned' seems to imply the idea of regularity and the possibility of future repetition (i.e. imperfection) that I expected from that tense. Would you be so kind as to find a few more examples to see if we can pin this down?


----------



## curius

berndf said:


> The reasons why the forms emerged here different:
> For _habeo_+ppl (Latin _habeo amatus_ > Italian _ho amato_) the reason was that the Latin perfect was ambiguous: it could have preterite and could have present perfect meaning (_amaverim _=_ I loved _or _I have loved_).



I'm sorry but what present perfect meaning, specifically, was that?
Just from one american article I have just read, the author identifies at least four contemporary meanings for global spanish also shared with american english: resultative, experiential, continuative and 'hot news'.


----------



## berndf

curius said:


> I'm sorry but what present perfect meaning, specifically, was that?


Present state as the result of completed action.


curius said:


> contemporary meanings


That development took place some 2000 years ago contemporary meanings don't exactly matter.


----------



## curius

berndf said:


> Present state as the result of completed action.



Could you expand on that please?
What inferences do you take from the excerpt Scholiast gave above:

Cic. Fam. 10.24.3, "quantum in acie tironi sit committendum, nimium saepe expertum habemus" : "How much reliance in the front line can be placed on a novice, we have too often learned".

that differ from:

"How much reliance in the front line can be placed on a novice, we learned too often"


----------



## berndf

curius said:


> we learned too often


Talks about the past action/event of learning.


curius said:


> we have too often learned


Talks about knowing something now.


----------



## PersoLatin

Persian uses three auxiliary verbs in almost exactly the same way as in French & English, and the three verbs are, wait for it, to be, to have and to will/want/wish.

Here, in Persian we use budan i.e. 'to be', whereas in English 'to have', is used for these tenses:
rafté budam - I had gone, rafté is the past participle of raftan (to go)
raftéam - I have gone

Using xâstan (to will/want/wish)
xâham raft - I will go

Here, in Persian we use dâštan i.e. 'to have', whereas in English 'to be', is used for these tenses:
dâram miravam - I am going
dâšrpram miraftam - I was going


----------



## curius

Interesting.
So in which situations do you use 'I have gone' instead of 'I went'?


----------



## PersoLatin

We don't mix or swap these, if that's what you are asking. They are distinct and are identical in meaning and use, to English, perhaps not French.

'raftam' means 'I went', this conjugation is made up of 'raft' and 'am', the former is verb stem, the latter means 'I am' so in effect for 'I went', we say 'I am gone' (although raft is not a past participle like gone)
when we use the PP i.e. 'rafté' plus 'am' then the meaning changes to 'I have gone'


----------



## curius

No, I'm asking if you could give examples when you have to use the present perfect to convey the meaning intended.


----------



## PersoLatin

Three past tense examples; simple, present perfect and past perfect:

1 *do*(two)* ruz*(day)* piŝ*(before) *raftam*(I went) *birun*(out) - I went out two days ago
2 *man*(I)* qablan*(before) *ânjâ*(there) *raftéam*(have gone) - I have gone there before
3 *diruz*(yesterday) *vaqti*(when) *man râ *(me) *didi* (you saw), *birun*(out) *rafté* *budam*(had gone) - Yesterday when you saw me, I had (already) gone out.

I have put the English, next to each Persian word, it makes it, a bit messy but I hope, more helpful.


----------



## curius

Thank you.
So, what is the difference in meaning between
1: Man qablan ânjâ raftéam.
and 
2: Man qablan ânjâ raftam.
?


----------



## PersoLatin

A big difference, _man *qablan* ânjâ raftam -_ is incorrect.

In Persian (English too), simple past, must have a specified time of action which informs you that the action started & ended, in the past.

_man qablan ânjâ raftam_ is incorrect, because qablan (before) doesn't define a specific time, it could be *10 minutes ago, earlier today, yesterday, 3 weeks ago*, etc, and you don't know if that time has ended. If you use any of the words in bold, instead of qablan, then all is good.

For the present perfect, the time of action is not specific, (sometimes not important), but it started in the past and it is still going on, so qablan fits the bill.


----------



## curius

Sounds wooly for a big difference.


PersoLatin said:


> qablan (before) doesn't define a specific time [...] and you don't know if that time has ended.


In English, 'before' and 'now' are pretty much mutually exclusive.

So, is it just a matter of agreement between verb and the delimitation of the time expression? Nothing else?
And what if there is no time expression at all? Are they equivalent then?

1: Man ânjâ raftam
2: Man ânjâ raftéam


----------



## PersoLatin

Your two examples are usually used in contexts that provides a time element. Of course you might hear them as they are, but only as replies to questions which have the time element in them, explicitly or implicitly.

1 man ânjâ raftam - I went there
2 man ânjâ raftéam - I have gone there

They are never *equivalent*, at least not in English or Persian. I cannot think of any situation, with any verb, that they can be. Of course, if there are any, they'll be the exception. 

I think I have come across this 'equivalent' situation in French, but don't quote me on that, my French is 'un petit peu'

This link has very good examples. Of course they are in English but they are equivalent to Persian.

http://www.edufind.com/english-grammar/present-perfect/


----------



## Scholiast

Greetings again


PersoLatin said:


> I think I have come across this 'equivalent' situation in French...


Yes: there is a firm distinction here between spoken and written French usage: the _passé composé_ is ubiquitous in oral usage for both preterite and past perfect, for the so-called _passé historique_ (i.e. the "preterite" perfect, or aorist) is only used in writing.
French has of course the advantage, for the sake of finer tuning, of also having a conjugated imperfect.
Σ


----------



## apmoy70

curius said:


> apmoy70, your post is detailed enough and I'm sure it took a bit to compose. Nevertheless I tried to read it a few times and I still cannot make head or tails of it. When it was first established, the present perfect was used for what exactly?


Hi curius, the Greek _Παρακείμενος_ tense expresses an action that began in the past and stopped recently but affects the present. Note also that Greek (both ancient and modern) does not distinguish between Present Perfect Simple, and Present Perfect Continuous.
A couple of examples of Greek _Παρακείμενος_ (active voice):
Classical Greek: *«Γέγραφα» gégrapʰă* --> _I've written_ < reduplication *«γε-» ge-* + Present tense root *«γραφ-» grapʰ-* + Present Perfect 1st p. sing. indicative suffix *«-α» -ă*.
Modern Greek: *«Έχω γράψει»* [ˈexo ˈɣrap͡si] --> _I've written_ (periphrastic Present Perfect) < Present tense 1st p. sing. indicative *«έχω»* [ˈexo] --> _I have_ + aorist infinitive *«γράψει»* [ˈɣraˈpsi] < Byzantine Greek aorist infinitive *«γράψει(ν)» gráp͡sei(n)* < Classical Greek aorist infinitive *«γράψαι» grắp͡sai* (< Present tense root *«γραφ-» grapʰ-* + aorist suffix *«-σαι» -sai*)


----------



## PersoLatin

Interesting, in modern colloquial/informal (spoken) Persian, the distinction between the pronunciations of the present perfect and simple past, is very subtle, and to the unwary, including some Persian speakers, they sound the same.
So for the two examples I gave:
1: _raftam _(I went) the formal & colloquial/informal, are the same.
2: _raft*éa*m _(I have gone) is the formal and its colloquial/informal is _raft*a*m_, where the a in bold, is stretched (and combines the two vowel sounds _*éa*_). Despite this similarity of sound (with the simple past version), this tense can always be identified by the element of time that will always be provided (already, yet etc), informal or not.


----------



## curius

apmoy70 said:


> Hi curius, the Greek _Παρακείμενος_ tense expresses an action that began in the past and stopped recently but affects the present. Note also that Greek (both ancient and modern) does not distinguish between Present Perfect Simple, and Present Perfect Continuous.



So how does greek expresses a repeated action in the past that may carry on to the future (Present Perfect Continuous)? Because in some european languages this is done by the Present Perfect, as it was the case with Cicero's quote above.


----------

