4 ms·

In English, school-taught grammar is often wildly different from modern linguists' view. For example, while traditional English grammar has no less than 12 ten

In English, school-taught grammar is often wildly different from modern linguists' view. For example, while traditional English grammar has no less than 12 tenses, linguists consider it to only have two tenses: past or present. The remaining differences don't really behave like tense. I could imagine something similar happening in Turkish.

sedatk 2y ago
Let me put it this way: it's not less of a tense than present perfect tense in English. They signify the time in a similar way.
- hashmush 2y ago
  Right, because "present" is the tense here and "perfect" the aspect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Present_perfect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Present_perfect
  - sedatk 2y ago
    Ok, how is that different than "learned"/"reported" being the aspect and "past" being the tense in Turkish?
    - thaumasiotes 2y ago
      Because "learned" and "reported" aren't aspects? Aspect describes the temporal structure of an event - for example, it might occur at a single moment, or it might occur at several discrete points in time ("I walk his dog every Saturday"), or it might occur over a continuous duration. Mood describes the relationship of an event to reality.
      - sedatk 2y ago
        Ok, let me correct my question: Why is "present perfect tense" closer to a tense, but "learned past tense" is closer to a mood?
        yongjik 2y ago
        In school grammar, "present perfect" is a tense. School grammars are basically tradition, so you can call it whatever you want as long as you agree with long-dead grammarians. Ditto for Turkish - I'm sure it has its own dead grammarians. In modern grammar, "present perfect" is not "close to a tense" - it's a combination of present tense and perfect aspect.
        thaumasiotes 2y ago
        We can say a little more; in traditional grammar, aspect is not a recognized category. Thus, while it is very clear that Latin has a system of three tenses, two aspects, and three moods (counting imperative), traditional grammar assigns it six "tenses": +---------+-----------+------------------+ | tense | aspect | traditional name | +---------+-----------+------------------+ | present | imperfect | present | +---------+-----------+------------------+ | past | imperfect | imperfect | +---------+-----------+------------------+ | future | imperfect | future | +---------+-----------+------------------+ | present | perfect | perfect | +---------+-----------+------------------+ | past | perfect | pluperfect | +---------+-----------+------------------+ | future | perfect | future perfect | +---------+-----------+------------------+ This is the reason for calling perfect a "tense": it's traditional. But this model won't stand up to analysis. Interestingly, the Romans themselves do not seem to have used it; where we refer to "pluperfect tense", they referred to the "past perfect-er tense", identifying both tense and aspect (admittedly, both under the name "tense", or rather "time"). I don't know when the conceptual distinction was lost.
        yongjik 2y ago
        To nitpick: under modern analysis "future" is not a tense in English: the future verb "will" (or "shall") behaves much more like "can", "may", "must" and so on - they're collectively called modal verbs, i.e., in English future is a mood.
        2y ago
- amaccuish 2y ago
  As the other commenter said, perfect is the aspect, so the internal structure of an event, very important e.g. in Slavic languages. Your confusion leaves the door open to doubt on your actual knowledge of linguistics.

sedatk 2y ago

Let me put it this way: it's not less of a tense than present perfect tense in English. They signify the time in a similar way.

hashmush 2y ago
Right, because "present" is the tense here and "perfect" the aspect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Present_perfect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Present_perfect
- sedatk 2y ago
  Ok, how is that different than "learned"/"reported" being the aspect and "past" being the tense in Turkish?
  - thaumasiotes 2y ago
    Because "learned" and "reported" aren't aspects? Aspect describes the temporal structure of an event - for example, it might occur at a single moment, or it might occur at several discrete points in time ("I walk his dog every Saturday"), or it might occur over a continuous duration. Mood describes the relationship of an event to reality.
    - sedatk 2y ago
      Ok, let me correct my question: Why is "present perfect tense" closer to a tense, but "learned past tense" is closer to a mood?
      - yongjik 2y ago
        In school grammar, "present perfect" is a tense. School grammars are basically tradition, so you can call it whatever you want as long as you agree with long-dead grammarians. Ditto for Turkish - I'm sure it has its own dead grammarians. In modern grammar, "present perfect" is not "close to a tense" - it's a combination of present tense and perfect aspect.
        thaumasiotes 2y ago
        We can say a little more; in traditional grammar, aspect is not a recognized category. Thus, while it is very clear that Latin has a system of three tenses, two aspects, and three moods (counting imperative), traditional grammar assigns it six "tenses": +---------+-----------+------------------+ | tense | aspect | traditional name | +---------+-----------+------------------+ | present | imperfect | present | +---------+-----------+------------------+ | past | imperfect | imperfect | +---------+-----------+------------------+ | future | imperfect | future | +---------+-----------+------------------+ | present | perfect | perfect | +---------+-----------+------------------+ | past | perfect | pluperfect | +---------+-----------+------------------+ | future | perfect | future perfect | +---------+-----------+------------------+ This is the reason for calling perfect a "tense": it's traditional. But this model won't stand up to analysis. Interestingly, the Romans themselves do not seem to have used it; where we refer to "pluperfect tense", they referred to the "past perfect-er tense", identifying both tense and aspect (admittedly, both under the name "tense", or rather "time"). I don't know when the conceptual distinction was lost.
        yongjik 2y ago
        To nitpick: under modern analysis "future" is not a tense in English: the future verb "will" (or "shall") behaves much more like "can", "may", "must" and so on - they're collectively called modal verbs, i.e., in English future is a mood.
        2y ago
amaccuish 2y ago
As the other commenter said, perfect is the aspect, so the internal structure of an event, very important e.g. in Slavic languages. Your confusion leaves the door open to doubt on your actual knowledge of linguistics.