ОППОЗИЦИЯ ПЕРФЕКТ/ПЛЮСКВАМПЕРФЕКТ В 1-Й НОВГОРОДСКОЙ ЛЕТОПИСИ В СОПОСТАВЛЕНИИ С ДАННЫМИ РУССКИХ ГОВОРОВ
The paper focuses on the two most important perfective forms expressing past time reference in the Nizh dialect of Udi, a language of the Lezgic group of East Caucasian family. The form with the suffix -i is the most frequent in narrative texts, and can be properly characterized as the Aorist (perfective past). The form with the suffix -e is less frequent, but has a wide range of uses, including the expression of current relevance of past situations and the experiential meaning, as well as the resultative meaning (present state); on the whole, this form fits the crosslinguistic category of the perfect. There is also the Pluperfect, which is derived from the Perfect by means of the “retrospective switch” enclitic, and is semantically a “perfect in the past”. Apart from the functional differences between the Aorist and the Perfect, there is a number of morphosyntactic ones. In particular, the default position of person markers on the verb is enclitic in case of the Perfect, but endoclitic (intraclitic) in case of the Aorist. Also, there is a special negation strategy available only for the Perfect, which includes the perfective participle and the postpositional negative complex. According to the hypothesis put forward in the paper, this negation structure may at least partly disclose the origin of the Perfect form, which seems to be based on the participle. The diachronic scenarios of the Aorist and the Perfect origin and evolution are discussed in the paper, as well as the perspectives for future research of the system of past tenses in Udi.
An outline of perfect and pluperfect in the dialect of Gammalsvenskby.
The paper is devoted to the marginal construction that appears to be a kind of hybrid of an imperative and the future perfect: the auxiliary verb has the form of the imperative mood and is used with an l-participle. The construction is semantically and structurally similar to the Slavic perfect and the Slavic future perfect, however it is attested only in some archaic translated Church Slavonic monuments represented by East Slavic copies from the 11th through the 15th centuries of South Slavic translations (these include the Catechetical Lectures of Cyril of Jerusalem and the Homily to the Entombment and the Resurrection of Jesus Christ by Gregory of Antioch, as a part of the Uspensky Sbornik of the 12th–13th century) or by East Slavic translations of the Story of Ahikar. The author of the article suggests different interpretations of the grammatical state of the construction in question and describes the advantages and disadvantages of each. The following interpretations are offered: 1) regarding the construction as a tracing of the original structure, 2) regarding it as an artificial rhetorical construction, and 3) regarding it as an analytical construction with an auxiliary verb in the imperative mood and the main verb in the form of an l-participle. It seems preferable not to regard the construction as a simple calque of the original structure but rather as a particular archaic perfect imperative periphrasis. It remains unclear, however, whether it was an exclusively literary structure and was used as a possible means of translating Greek constructions with éstō or if it could be used independently.
A volume on perfect in World Englishes and diachronical corpora reviewed. In the articles included in the collection both new language material and new techniques are used. The new material are the regional varieties of English, the so-called “World Englishes”, which sometimes differ quite significantly in the use of perfect forms (“Present Perfect friendliness”) and their semantics (as noted by researchers earlier)
The paper proposes a diachronic explanation of the syntax of resultatives in Moksha Mordvin