modal verbs - When did periphrastic tenses stop being tenses?

English sometimes has several different ways of expressing the same thing. For example, it can form a possessive either by using an old case inflection:

The dog’s tail was always wagging.

Or it can do so periphrastically:

The tail of the dog was always wagging.

Those are both possessives, the one an inflectional possessive and the other a periphrastic possessive. The same appears to be possible with tenses, too, not just with possessives. In Jeremy Butterfield’s The Arguments of Time (OUP 2006), he writes:

A tense is inflectional if it is realized as an affix on a head (in English, a verb), periphrastic if it is realized as an independent word. Thus the English past is inflectional, but the future is periphrastic, co-opting the modal will.

This accords with the OED’s definition of tense:

Gram. Any one of the different forms or modifications (or word-groups) in
the conjugation of a verb which indicate the different times (past,
present, or future) at which the action or state denoted by it is viewed as
happening or existing, and also (by extension) the different nature of
such action or state, as continuing (imperfect) or completed (perfect);
also abstr. that quality of a verb which depends on the expression of such

differences.

Indeed, one of the citations under that sense draws attention to this:

The tenses of the English verb are made partly by inflection, partly by the use of auxiliary verbs.

As far as I can tell, tense cannot be just an alias for “inflection” as some here have been saying. At least, not if the sources cited above are to be believed.

And my question is. . .

Aren’t these all tenses, both the inflectional¹ tenses and the periphrastic² tenses alike?

_{1. Inflectional tenses are sometimes also known as synthetic tenses.
2. Periphrastic tenses are sometimes also known as analytic tenses, or analytical tenses — or sometimes, compound tenses.}

When did compound tenses stop being tenses? Or have they? Isn’t that what these people who pretend that ‘English has no future tense’ are actually saying, that periphrastic tenses are not tenses?

If so, then the OED does not support the notion. Under their definition of periphrastic. . .

Of the nature of, characterized by, or involving periphrasis; circumlocutory; roundabout.

. . . they have a note, which covers both verbs and possessives:

periphrastic conjugation (in Grammar), a conjugation formed by the combination of a simple verb and an auxiliary, as distinct from a
simple formation from the verb-stem.

periphrastic genitive, an equivalent of the genitive case, formed by aid of a preposition, as
of in Eng.,
de in Fr.

So periphrastic forms seem real, whether as tenses or genitives. I do not see how periphrastic started to mean ersatz or bogus or fake. So why have some people begun to treat periphrastic tenses as fake tenses? No, they aren’t inflectional tenses, but why does this matter? Other languages have plenty of kinds of periphrastic tenses, and nobody discounts them there. So why have they started trying to discount them in English?

Other Tongues

If one were allowed to bring Romance into the picture, then it might be useful to point out that sometimes both inflectional and periphrastic versions of the same tense exist, and that nobody there ever pretends one is a tense and the other is not.

In Latin, periphrastic conjugations existed, allowing you to use portātūrus sum for “I’m going to carry”, which coëxists with the purely inflectional future, portābō. This is like how in modern Romance you can have both an inflectional future tense (FR je porterai; ES portaré) and a periphrastic future tense (FR je vais porter; ES voy a portar).

In French, for example, you can put a present-tense sentence like je porte into the past in either of two equivalent ways: via the passé composé with j’ai porté or via the passé simple with je portai. No one calls the first one present tense there, because it is not perceived as such. Similarly, the pluperfect exists only as a compound/periphrastic tense in French, but j’avais porté is not called the past tense (even though avais itself is in the imparfait), but rather the pluperfect, the plus-que-parfait.

In Spanish, there are two versions of the pluperfect tense, a rare inflectional one and a common periphrastic one. The compound version of the pluperfect indicative is había portado, whereas the purely inflectional version is portara (which is normally one of the two imperfect subjunctives). Those are both considered to be in the pluperfect. Nobody calls había portado as being in the imperfect just because había is; that would be wrong: it is in the pluperfect.

In modern Romance, the inflectional future and the inflectional conditional were once periphrastic tenses but are now inflectional ones. The present-tense auxiliary was used for the then-compound future, and the imperfect-tense auxiliary was used for the then-compound conditional. Specifically, they used either a present-tense or past-tense form of to have, inflected for person and number, appended to the infinitive. Eventually this became fused in writing — completely fused in most of them but only partially fused in Portuguese, where mesoclitics are still permitted. The compound tense did not suddenly become a “real” tense just when people stopped writing it with a space, nor does it cease to be one when in Portuguese a mesoclitic intervenes.

Even word boundaries are not objective facts

Perhaps the most fundamental issue you raise is that of word boundaries. What were once considered two separate words may fuse into a single, new word, as in cantare habeo => chanterai. At some point in its development, the status of this phrase-or-word must have been uncertain. This shows how relative the whole terminology is.

But in most cases, a reasonable case can be made for either one or the other, so that the fundamental issue temporarily recedes to the background; it should be noted, however, that what we consider a "word" is to some extent intrinsically subjective and a matter of convention. It is just a convenient demarcation. But let's move on.

Is tense determined by form or by function?

Let me illustrate the problem by means of Latin, where terminology has been fixed for a long time. Tense comes from Latin tempus, "time"; part of the oldest concept of tenses had to do with notions of time. However, there was never a one-to-one correspondence between tenses and temporal references. The pluperfect, for example, is normally used to refer to a time before a narrated time in the past, just as in English; and yet after postquam, "after", the perfect was used, not the pluperfect. Similarly, the imperfect and pluperfect could be used to refer to an hypothetical situation in the present, as in English if I was rich... (although subjunctives were far more common). And so on.

Si domi eram, pater me puniebat. = If at_home I_was, father me punished. "if I were at home, father would punish me."

Postquam Galliam vidi, vici. = After Gaul I_saw, I_conquered_it. "After I had seen Gaul, I conquered it."

And yet we still call the verbs in these examples imperfect and perfect, respectively, even though they do not have their usual temporal references. The reason we do this is that the form is named after its most common function, even though it can indeed have other functions. Latin and English do this and are by no means the only languages.

Do we then look only at the form of the verb, not at its function, when defining tenses in Latin? No. What we call the passive perfect is periphrastic/analytic/compound, just as in English:

Canis sum. = Dog I_am. "I am a dog."

Visus sum. = Seen I_am. "I am/was seen."

You could say this is not a special tense, but two words, one being a past particple, the other a present verb; and yet this is called the passive perfect. The reason is that it functions just as the perfect does—except that it is passive. Here function determines what we call it. This happens in English too when we say I will do it is in the future tense.

Humans like symmetrical systems

So then what constitutes a tense, if we can count neither on form, nor on function, at least not reliably so? The answer is probably symmetry. If there is a present active (video "I see"), a present passive (videor, "I am (being) seen"), and a perfect active (vidi "I saw"), we would like there to be a perfect passive. Because there was no such verbal form, a phrase was made to be equivalent, (visus sum "I was/am seen in the past"). We humans like our systems neat and symmetrical if possible:

           Active   Passive    
Present    video    videor

Imperfect  videbam  videbar
Perfect    vidi     [visus sum]
Future     videbo   videbor

Now is this label "passive perfect" merely a convention? It may have been once, but, as people start believing in it, they start using it in ways that neatly fit the system, even if the meaning of visus sum was once somewhat different. It is in some ways a self-fulfilling prophecy. Whenever a sentence in the active perfect was passivated, instead of saying "oh, I can't do that", people started thinking, "this is the passive perfect; I will use it". The same applies to I will do it in English.

All three approaches have up-sides and down-sides

Is this a perfect system of terminology? No. There are serious disadvantages. But it has been in use for a long while, and most people think of "I will do it" as fitting within a neat system of past, present, and future, because that is the most convenient and obvious partition of our verb tenses, or so we feel.

Various branches of linguistics have proposed different systems and different terminologies in the past. This is a productive and beneficial approach. Some chose to focus on form and consider the English periphrastic future not a tense at all; they will only count affixes and endings as capable of forming tenses. This system certainly has merit.

Others have emphasised function; they have gone so far as to declare that, since many forms can be used for more than one function, as with si eram... / "if I was...", only foregoing form altogether leads to a consistent approach. Hence they treat tense as a property of a clause or sentence, not of a word or phrase. That way, only combined with a word like yesterday does was acquire a past tense; in if I was at work today, you wouldn't see me here, it is a present tense, because it refers to a situation in the present, be it an hypothetical one. This approach, too, has merit.

One could use several systems at once

As an alternative, we could invent new words for these two new approaches, such as *single-word tenses for the English simple present and simple past, and time-reference or temporality for the time-reference of a clause or sentence. Many different models are possible. Insisting on one model without considering the benefits of other models seems unwise. And saying "x is A" when you mean "I find the model in which x is called A most useful" is a simplification.

Suppletion as an illustration of a convenient choice

Some systems are uncontested, even though at some point in the past a fairly arbitrary choice must have been made.

I go.

I went.

Do these two forms belong to the same verb? Yes, you will, say, because that is what you were taught, and because they "feel" like the same verb, just with odd forms. But, in the past, there were two verbs, both meaning something like going (although there were no doubt some differences between them). At some point the present form of a verb resembling go was taken, its past forms discarded (or not, if such never existed), and the past form of a verb resembling went.

We could say, "there are two defective verbs in modern English, one lacking a past form, the other a present form"; but we choose not to do so. That is to some degree arbitrary, but in this case it is just very convenient. If certain linguists would prefer to treat them as two different verbs, then let them do so, if this is somehow more convenient in a certain linguistic analysis. Or they could just say "this verb consists of two different roots", as they no doubt do.

Blog

Friday, October 12, 2018