Travis B. wrote:
And on that note...
Today I caught myself using a past participle gaven for give instead of given, clearly intending the same aspect with gaven as I have when I use aten instead of eaten.
Any examples of where you use aten
to illustrate the distinction? Sounds interesting.
I talked it over with my mom, who actually makes the same exact
distinction between eaten
, and ate
(p.p.) that I make, and from discussing it with her (even though the linguistic terms are mine, not hers), the distinction between eaten
is one of atelic versus telic respectively. I had already figured out that those two differ from ate
(p.p.) in that those are imperfective while ate
(p.p.) is perfective; when put in laymans' terms, my mom corroborated this as well. Likewise, ate
(p.p.) appears to be telic as well, even though the nature of telicity seems to be different for it, in that it refers to a discrete event rather than a continuous process.I have eaten snails.
(I have gone through the process of eating snails at some point, and I might eat more snails at some point.) i.e. imperfective and atelicI have aten snails.
(I have gone through the process of eating snails at some point, and am done eating snails, possibly permanently.) i.e. imperfective and telicI have ate snails.
(I have finished eating snails at some point, and am complete for that moment, even though I may eat snails again.) i.e. perfective and telic
From all appearances, given
, and gave
(p.p.) form an analogous system. I similar three-member systems can be formed for all strong forms which have a different stem vowel in their preterite and their historical past participle, and where their historical past participle also ends in -(e)n
, e.g. shaken
, and shook
(p.p.) and driven
, and drove
(p.p.). (Not all these seem to be common, though; for instance, while I have caught myself using the written
(p.p.) system, wroten
is not that common, unlike aten
There are other examples of such systems that differ somewhat. For instance, a system with an extra perfective and atelic role is formed by drunk
, and drank
(p.p.) respectively, where drunk
(p.p.) are both perfective, drunken
are both imperfective, drunk
are both atelic, and dranken
(p.p.) are both telic.
However, if a smaller system can be similarly formed, the imperfective and atelic role and the perfective and telic role are always the ones taken, with the traditional past participle always taking the first role and the traditional preterite always taking the third role. Consider bitten
(p.p.), or ridden
(p.p.) without the hypothetical *roden
Two-member systems can also be formed for verbs that can have both an -(e)n
past participle and a -ed
past participle, where the former is simply imperfective and atelic while the latter is perfective and telic, corresponding to the first and the third of the system above. A good example of such a pair is shown
(p.p.). Similar effects can be obtained just about anywhere where a strong past participle can alternate with a weak participle, taking to the respective roles, e.g. boughten