Категория перфекта в чукотско-камчатских языках
An outline of perfect and pluperfect in the dialect of Gammalsvenskby.
The article analyzes l-forms without an auxiliary with a meaning of a pre-past action. Such l-participles are usually regarded as perfect forms used in pluperfect contexts. However, it will be shown that apparently we deal with the rise of a specialized for expressing the grammatical meaning of result, for which the correlation with time (present or past) was irrelevant. This interpretation is confirmed with the material of Modern Russian dialects with -shi / -vshi perfect and pluperfect, where the -shi / -vshi form used without the auxiliary in the past tense can mean the result pertaining not only to the present, but also to the past.
The article analyzes instances of verbal l-forms used without auxiliary in Old Russian Hypatian Chronicle (13th–15th c.). Special emphasis is on the contexts where l-forms do not convey the meaning of the perfect tense. One part consists of contexts that are typical for participle predications. The other part consists of examples where the l-forms appear in typical participle contexts of the vstavъ (i) reče type. All examples where l-forms do not have the meaning of the perfect tense can be attributed either to the first or to the second group. Taking this into account, as well as the material from the dialects and other Slavic languages that include, to varying extent, adjectives going back to l-participles, it seems reasonable to assume that l-forms could function not only as a part of the compound verbal predicate, but also as a past participle -ъš-/-vъš-.
The article focuses on the dialogical (non-narrative) uses of Russian delimitative predicates with prefix po (poguljat’, porabotat’). In dialogical discourse, such predicates almost obligatorily receive perfect interpretation (i. e. in almost all cases — at least for non-topical predicates — they always express the semantics of current relevance). They differ in this respect from the transformative perfective verbs (napisat’, kupit’), which also frequently receive perfect interpretation in dialogical discourse, but it can be easily cancelled. In addition, in dialogical discourse delimitative verbs form a functional opposition with the corresponding imperfective verbs (in their “general-factual” uses) (cf. a pair Ja pospal vs. Ja spal). While the former express perfect semantics proper (current relevance semantics) — Ja pospal; Ja uže poguljal, — the latter express opposite experiential ~ “existential” semantics — Ja spal; Ja uže guljal. Given the fact that the delimitative derivation is highly productive in Russian (delimitative predicate can be formed from almost any imperfective verb), it can be considered to perform in Russian the role of a specialized perfect for atelic situations and for telic situations not achieving their natural endpoint. At the same time this device is (almost) obligatory in this function only in dialogical discourse in non-topical uses. The role of “non-perfect” grammatical device in the same conditions is performed by corresponding imperfective predicates.