Aspect in Quenya
Grammatical Aspect
In his work1 Lars Johanson investigated how the aspectual systems can be regarded as an interaction of a limited set of viewpoint markers. Those relevant to Quenya include:
- intraterminality vs. nonintraterminality
- postterminality vs. nonpostterminality
Marked members of the oppositions are items with the values intraterminality (+INTRA) and postterminality (+POST), implying the positive notion. Unmarked members are items with the values nonintraterminality (–INTRA) and nonpostterminality (–POST), implying negation of, or neutrality towards, the positive notion on a common basis of comparison. An item may also be naturally characterized by a certain value though lacking a competing item in the same temporal stratum, e.g. +INTRA°, +POST°.
Intraterminality
The most widespread viewpoint opposition in European languages is that of intraterminality vs. nonintraterminality. Intraterminality, +INTRA, envisages the event from an internal point of view: within its limits, after its beginning and before its end. +INTRA items view the event in its course and are unable to grasp it in its totality. In narrative discourse, this internal way of viewing events makes them non-propulsive, incapable of advancing a plot.
Nonintraterminality, –INTRA, as opposed to +INTRA, does not present the event from an inside point of view, but rather envisages it from outside, without special regard to limits. It neither expresses nor excludes completion, but tacitly suggests, unless the contrary is signalled, the occurrence of the event as an unanalyzed totality including the endpoint. This integral meaning makes –INTRA items propulsive in narrative discourse.
The ±INTRA opposition is found in large swathes of Europe. The items signaling intraterminality show varying degrees of grammaticalization and generalized use. In many languages the ±INTRA distincion is obligatory in the past tense. There are, however, also systems in which +INTRA items are used so restrictively that the opposing items seem to be rather neutral +PAST° items.
Degrees of Focality
Intraterminals display higher and lower focality degrees. Focality concerns the concentration of the psychological interest on the situation obtaining at core "now". All intraterminals refer to events that are relevant within an interval, but they may differ with respect to the relative narrowness of the range of vision determined by "nunc". The 'presentness' is more or less focal: from the narrowest idea of an interval confined to the immediate proximity to broader ideas of an expanded and even infinitely expandable period of time.
As a rough classification of 'presentness' ascribable to events going on at O, it might be assumed that the range of vision can be (i) narrow, (ii) expanded, or (iii) open. It may thus concern (i) uni-occasional events, basically confined to the immediate proximity of О and actually performed there; (ii) uni- or pluri-occasional events, not confined to the immediate proximity of O, but actually performed there; or (iii) uni- or pluri-occasional events, in principle conceived as being valid in a regular or characteristic way, without being actually performed at the very moment of introspection.
The tentative focality scale adopted here has three positions or cardinal degrees: relatively high focality (HF), relatively low focality (LF) and non-focality (NF). High-focal roughly corresponds to "progressive", low-focal to "nonprogressive continuous", and non-focal to "habitual".
A lower item on the focality scale is semantically more general than a higher one. It may thus be used in cases that allow characterization in terms of higher focality or require a higher item in some other language. If a language has two items of different focality, the lower one may roughly cover ongoing events that are more precisely expressed by the higher one, e.g. English wrote ⊃ was writing. A relatively low +INTRA item in language A may cover situations that require a higher item in language B, e.g., French écrivait ⊃ English was writing. This is also true of items that are indifferent towards intraterminality, e.g., German schrieb ⊃ English was writing.
Focality Oppositions
Numerous European languages exhibit thoroughly grammaticalized focality oppositions. In the non-past stratum, English progressives express high-focal intraterminality within the opposition –PAST(+INTRA°(+FOC)) is writing vs. –PAST(+INTRA°(–FOC)) writes. In the simple past stratum, however, the high-focal is the only +INTRA item of the opposition: +PAST(+INTRA) was writing vs. +PAST(–INTRA) wrote.
The type is rather marginal in the overall European picture. Focality oppositions more frequently involve two +INTRA items in both strata. For example, Romance languages except French and Romanian employ, apart from their +INTRA° Presents and +INTRA Imperfects, thoroughly grammaticalized devices signalling higher focality: –PAST(+INTRA°(+FOC)) vs. –PAST(+INTRA°(–FOC)) in Italian sta cantando 'is singing' vs. canta 'sings, is singing', and +PAST(+INTRA(+FOC)) vs. +PAST(+INTRA(–FOC)) stava cantando 'was singing' vs. cantava 'sang, used to sing, was singing'. The +PAST high-focals are used rather extensively in the languages where they occur.
The degree of focality signalled in the oppositions may be higher or lower. In some oppositions, the higher item basically stands for a narrow presentness and is not readily used for a expanded or open presentness, e.g., Icelandic –PAST(+INTRA°(+FOCHF)) er аð lesa bokina 'is reading the book' vs. –PAST(+INTRA°(–FOC)) leser bókina 'is reading, reads the book'. Turkic languages of Europe display oppositions of a relatively low focality, e.g., Turkish -PAST(+INTRA°(+FOCLF)) yazıyor 'writes, is writing' vs. –PAST(+INTRA°(–FOC)) yazar 'writes, will write'; +PAST(+INTRA(+FOCLF)) yazıyordu 'was writing, wrote' vs. +PAST(+INTRA(–FOC)) yazardı 'wrote, would write'.
Intraterminality in Quenya
In –PAST stratum we observe the opposition of two tenses:
- –PAST(+INTRA°(–FOC)) called aorist
- –PAST(+INTRA°(+FOC)) called present
In more than a few examples Quenya present was translated to English as Simple Present:
i hárar mahalmassen"those who sit upon thrones" [UT/305]elen síla lúmenn' omentielvo"a star shines on the hour of our meeting" [LotR/81]ar hísie untúpa Calaciryo míri oiale"and mist covers the jewels of Calacirya forever" [LotR/377]
Tolkien explicitly discussed some difference between English Present Progressive and Quenya present: the latter could be used with non-dynamic verbs, unlike the former. [–t, –dyn] actional contents readily combine with +INTRA, but due to their lack of dynamicity they are infertile with +INTRAHF.
Quenya present is then a low-focal item –PAST(+INTRALF), and the opposition aorist vs. present is distributed akin to Turkish yazıyor 'writes, is writing' vs. yazar 'writes'.
In +PAST stratum Tolkien provided several conflicting descriptions:
- version (a): past vs. habitual past
- version (b): past vs. imperfect vs. habitual past
- version (c): past vs. imperfect
Version (a) presents us with general past of +PAST° type (cf. Estonian tegi 'did'), indifferent to intraterminality. The habitual past forms are peripheral +PAST(+INTRANF).
Version (b) separates habitual past based on participle from imperfect2: +PAST(–INTRA) past vs. +PAST(+INTRA(-FOC)) habitual past vs. +PAST(+INTRA(+FOC)) imperfect, similar to Irish scríobh vs. scríobhadh vs. bhí ag scríobh, or Turkish yazdı vs. yazardı vs. yazıyordu. It's not possible to discern whether the focality of imperfect was high or low in this case, however.
Version (c) mentions only imperfect 'more like aorist in syntax' and hints on it being fairly widely used. Together with the assumption that participle-based forms are not a part of later phase of Quenya, I propose that it was inteded to be a relatively low +PAST(+INTRA) item; compare the opposition with Italian scrisse 'wrote' vs. scriveva 'wrote, was writing, used to write'. Note that unusually no high-focal item like stava scrivendo is present in this system.
To summarize the (non-)intraterminal items of Quenya and how they compare to English:
| Quenya | English | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Aorist | –PAST(+INTRA°(–FOC)) | goes | –PAST(+INTRA°(–FOC)) |
| Present | –PAST(+INTRALF(+FOC)) | goes, is going | –PAST(+INTRAHF(+FOC)) |
| Preterite | +PAST(–INTRA) | went, has gone | +PAST(–POST(–INTRA)) |
| Imperfect | +PAST(+INTRALF) | was going, used to go | +PAST(–POST(+INTRAHF)) |
On Present with Non-dynamic Aktionsart: PE22/130
On Past Imperfect: (a, b) PE22/100-101, (c) PE22/157
Postterminality
The next viewpoint opposition to deal with is that of postterminality vs. nonpostterminality. Postterminality, +POST, envisages the event after the transgression of its relevant limit: the beginning or the end, depending on the phase structure. Transgressing the limit means going beyond it and not only reaching it. +POST items may thus present an event from an orientation point outside its cursus. Nonpostterminality, –POST, disregards this view.
+POST focuses the attention on a situation obtaining beyond the relevant limit, where the event, whether totally or partially past, is still relevant in one way or another.
While +POST has a natural affinity with the representation of past events, it is not equal to the feature +PAST. A –PAST(+POST) item can, by virtue of its viewpoint value involve a component of anteriority, which allows it to compete with +PAST(–POST) items in the simple past stratum. On the other hand, it does not signal remoteness in the sense of +PAST items. Focal +POST items typically remain in the realm of the given deictic centre and do not establish own deictic centres, as +PAST(–INTRA) and +PAST(–POST) items do.
+PAST(–POST) items are characterized by the absence of postterminality, which makes them more event-oriented and suitable as narrative pasts. Since their perspective is not tied to present that narrows the range of vision, they freely survey the flow of events and may refer directly, in a historical way, to an event at the very interval of its realization, independently of its relevance to any simultaneous or following deictic center.
If a +PAST(–POST) item is not intraterminal, it may present the historical event including its limits in an integral way, suggesting, unless the contrary is signalled, the occurrence of the event as an unanalyzed totality. Consequently, they are less compatible with markers of indefinite, unrestricted or generalized time ('ever', 'always', 'never', etc.) or with O-implying adverbs meaning 'already', 'not yet', 'just', 'now', etc. +PAST(–POST) items are thus not "simple Pasts", usable for all past events. They differ considerably from items that may present past events both in a historical and a diagnostic way, e.g., Hungarian lopott, Maltese seraq, Turkish çaldi 'stole, has stolen'.
Degrees of Focality
Anterior items can be interpreted more or less diagnostically or historically. A diagnostic reading is "now"-oriented, focusing the attention on the current state and stressing the relevance of the event at this point. A historical reading is event-oriented, stressing the relevance of the event at the time of its realization. Similar to +INTRA operator, postterminality can rage from high- ('stative') to low- ('constative') and non- (historic) focality levels. Lower focality does not exclude higher interpretations.
In many languages certain verbs possess special adjective-like forms, totally diagnostic +POSTHF items expressing 'frozen' states without any dynamic element, e.g., English is gone, French est maigri 'is emaciated', Bulgarian e umoren 'is tired', Irish tá briste 'is broken', Turkish asılıdır 'is suspended', Georgian c̣eria 'scriptum est'.
Whereas high-focals operate on transformatives, low-focals also operate on [-t] actional phrases. Low-focals can also have a relatively higher and lower position on the focality scale, implying more or less Os-relevance. Some of them, e.g., the Modern Greek and Armenian ones, are relatively high and used more restrictively than the English one, without being genuine high-focals.
The relatively strong Os-dependence thus restricts the use of –PAST(+POSTLF) items. One kind of current relevance is recentness, temporal closeness to Os.
ni·utúlie nyariello ve atarella"I have just come from talking with your father" [PE22/119]eténie"has just arrived" [VT49/23]
One possible kind of Os-relevance is resultativity, implying a change that has yielded a result present at Os, e.g., Modern Greek éxi érthi 'has come (and is here)'.
apárien parmanen"I have learnt by means of a book" [PE17/180]yéni ve lintë yuldar avánier"the years have passed like swift draughts" [LotR/377]
A further kind of Os-relevance is the constative use, based on a conclusion at Os regarding the event. It includes the "experiential" meaning, which is considered to be one of the main PF functions, implying that "a given situation has held at least once during some time in the past leading up to the present".
Error
No constative examples in corpus
Peripheral postterminal items
Many components found in postterminals show a high combinability and also occur in constructions that indicate a 'dwelling in' or 'entering into' a posttransformational phase without functioning as viewpoint operators of the core systems. These less generalized peripheral items exhibit uses atypical of fully grammaticalized postterminal items and must be assigned +POST0 values, as they do not compete with nonpostterminals in their respective temporal strata.
As for prospective postterminals, –PAST(+PRO(+POST0)) items instruct the addressee to situate the relevant limit of the event prior to an O2 foreseen at Os. Correspondingly, +PAST(+PRO(+POST0)) items instruct the addressee to situate the relevant limit of the event before an О foreseen at a past O2.
illume e·kestanen/kestanelyanen, ni·tulle"when/if he (had) asked me, I came" [PE22/121]
Postterminality in Quenya
Quenya employs one core postterminal tense called perfect. In its description and gloss it has a clear 'recentness' connotation, and thus more closely correspond to similar item in Irish tá tar éis leabhar a scríobh 'has (just) written a book', with more restricted use than English Present Perfect.
Quenya also developped +POSTHF items discussed above called perfective participles: vanwa 'gone', istanwa 'known', carinwa 'done'; as well as a few peripheral (non-obligatory) items in +PAST and +PRO strata.
Warning
Pluperfect QVS forms were made only from participles. The default assumption would be to discard it altogether like habitual past and future, as no form of acáriéne shape is attested. However, non-participle past future perfect is attested and ill conceived without its counterpart in the past stratum.
To summarize the (non-)postterminal items of Quenya and how they compare to English:
| Quenya | English | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Perfect | –PAST(+POSTLF+) | has (just) gone | –PAST(+POSTLF–(–INTRA)) |
| Perfective | +POSTHF | is gone | +POSTHF |
| Pluperfect | +PAST(+POST°) | had gone | +PAST(+POST°(-INTRA)) |
| Future Perfect | –PAST(+PRO(+POST°)) | will have done | +PAST(+POST(–INTRA)) |
| Past Future Perfect | +PAST(+PRO(+POST°)) | would have done | +PAST(+PRO(+POST(–INTRA))) |
On recentness of perfect: PE22/130
On perfective participle: PE22/106
Future
TBD
Quenya Tense-Aspect System Summary
| Quenya Tense | Approximation | English | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aorist | –PAST(+INTRA°(–FOC)) | Turkish Aorist | goes |
| Present | –PAST(+INTRALF(+FOC)) | Turkish Present | goes, is going |
| Perfect | –PAST(+POSTLF+) | Irish Perfect I | has (just) gone |
| Perfective | +POSTHF | Irish Perfect II | is gone |
| Preterite | +PAST(–INTRA) | Irish Preterite | went, has gone |
| Imperfect | +PAST(+INTRALF) | Italian Imperfect | was going, used to go |
| Pluperfect | +PAST(+POST°) | had gone | |
| Future | –PAST(+PRO°) | will go, will be going | |
| Past Future | +PAST(+PRO°) | would go, was going to go | |
| Future Perfect | –PAST(+PRO(+POST°)) | will have gone | |
| Past Future Perfect | +PAST(+PRO(+POST°)) | would have gone | |
Lexical Aspect
-
Tense and Aspect in the European Languages, pp. 27-189, 2000 ↩
-
Note that relative rareness of imperfect might have been a left-over from the previous version (a). ↩