| Re: pluperfect tense confusion |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
Group: alt.usage.english · Group Profile
Author: Aaron J. DinkinAaron J. Dinkin Date: Dec 17, 2006 06:10
On 16 Dec 2006 06:11:42 -0800, Steve MacGregor yahoo.com> wrote:
> I call (1) the "double perfect", and there is no such form in English;
> (2) is the proper form.
>
> Now there *is* such a form in Yiddish. The simple past tense of the
> word for "see" is "hat gesehn", and the past perfect is "hat gehat
> gesehn".
("Hot", not "hat".)
It sure looks like it, doesn't it? But I don't think the "gehat" there is
actually acting as the auxiliary formally, though I assume that's how it
originated. I think it's an adverb. That is, it's not the case that
"gezen" (the standard transliteration) is the complement of "gehat" and
"gehat" is the complement of "hot"; rather, "gezen" is the complement of
"hot" and "gehat" is an adverb.
The way you can tell is that the past perfect of verbs that take the
'be' auxiliary rather than the 'have' auxiliary also uses "gehat". So the
past perfect of 'come' is "iz gehat gekumen" (not "iz geven gekumen"),
even though "gehat" can't be a complement of "iz" and "gekumen" can't be
a complement of "gehat".
> There is no present perfect tense in Yiddish.
Well, or alternatively, there's only a present perfect, and there's no
simple past.
-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom
| 
