imperfect/perfect

Latin Learning Latin
1

‘I called’ is the english simple past. In latin it become the perfect.

‘I called’ is also the english imperfect if it represents customary or repeated actions which are not finished.

Based upon context the latin perfect can be translated back into the english simple past

Based upon context the latin imperfect can be translated back into the english simple past

Never translate into the latin perfect without clear reason expressed in english

Is this correct?


Question: If in english you simply see the sentence ‘I walked’ then it is contextual whether it is the imperfect or the simple past?

If you simply hear in english ‘I walked’ it could be either the simple past or the imperfect based on context or do you need more words in the sentence to give it away?



thanks.

2

What you wrote is correct.

Also, you may already know this, but the Latin imperfect often corresponds to the English past progressive. For instance, ambulabam may mean “I walked [i.e., nearly every week]” or it may mean “I was walking [i.e., when I found here].” Notice that the first example is habitual action, whereas the second example is incomplete/progressive action. Both are expressed in Latin by the imperfect (and in French, if you’re familiar with it, by the imparfait).

So if you see the past progressive (“was/were -ing”), you can know that the Latin equivalent is the imperfect.

-David

3

If i just see ‘I walked’ then it is contextual if it is imperfect or simple past? Or is it just simple past?

4

It depends on context.

Here are the types of past action that we are discussing. This chart indicates which tense can express which type of action. (These types of action are sometimes called “aspects.”)

---------------Incomplete Complete Habitual
Latin
Perfect----------------------------X-----------
Imperfect---------X-------------------------X

English
Simple Past----------------------X----------X
Past Progressive-X---------------------------

In other words, in Latin, ambulavit is definite, completed action in the past. It’s done with! He walked, and there ain’t no more walking.

ambulabat, on the other hand, might mean that, at a given period of time, he was walking… conclusion left undefined–incomplete, on other words.. ambulabat eo tempore cum perveni - “he was walking at the time when I arrived.” OR, it might mean that, he used to walk, he frequently walked, that is, habitual action.

It’s not the same in English.

He walked doesn’t have the same definiteness. Let’s look at two sentences.

He walked me home last night. - complete
He often walked me home last summer. - habitual

Note that the FIRST sentence corresponds to the Latin perfect. The SECOND, to the Latin imperfect. This is why context matters.

He was walking when I found him - incomplete (progressive)

Here, “was walking” can only correspond to the Latin imperfect.

Regards,

David

PS - I hope you like reading about syntax as much as I like writing about it (!)

5

the only question i have is that you are placing them in sentences. if you simply see

ambulavit = it is a finisihed action (perfect)

abulabat = he was walking (imperfect)

i am trying to get them devoid of other words. all alone without anything else around them contextual to find the ultimate meaning.

if the two above are correct ultimately then what is the english sentence:

‘I walked’

All by itself with nothing around it this looks past

There is no context to indicate that it is habiltual unless maybe it was in the sentence before


thanks.

6

There is no “ultimate meaning” of a word or utterance. (That’s part of what makes language so fascinating.) If you’re approaching learning Latin with the idea that there should be only one meaning for each thing, that there should be an exact one-to-one correspondence with the way we organize concepts in English, and that you can translate the same word exactly the same way every time you see it, you’re going to have trouble. Language doesn’t work that way. Language is inherently contextual; it isn’t a “code” to be deciphered. Every speech act is intended to communicate something. Learning the grammatical rules and declensional endings in Latin are only a way to facilitate understanding what is being communicated. Keep that in mind when you’re working on the exercises.

That said, for my own purposes, I tend to translate both “ambulavit” and “ambulabat” as “He walked,” since that is the usual way to indicate past action in written English. If I need to make the distinction for some reason, I’ll use “he has walked” and “was walking,” respectively. Translation should really only be a way of reminding yourself of what the Latin says, or for demonstrating to a teacher that you understand it.

By the way, is there any way you can shrink your avatar to about a tenth its current size? It’s nice, but it’s also taking up the whole screen in a way I find distracting. (Edit: I see it’s been fixed. Thanks.)

Well, I enjoy reading about syntax (even though I’m already familiar with the tense/aspect differences in English and Latin, it’s always interesting to see how someone else presents it.)

7

It occurred to me that my diagram describing the possible aspects of tenses in Latin and English was slightly misleading: I omitted the present perfect tense in English (has walked), which is a possible meaning of the perfect tense in Latin. Thus,

heri ambulavit domum means (as discussed) “he walked home yesterday,” an example of the simple past

modo ambulavit domum might mean “he has just walked home,” an example of the present perfect in English. This usage tends to refer to actions that have been completed and that refer to the present.

So:
ambulavit = he walked OR he has walked
ambulabat = he walked OR he was walking

As spiphany expresses so forcefully, you can’t escape context. One cannot identify the one thing that a word really means: it only means in context, and that context will determine which semantic option out of many possible options is appropriate.

Consider quam, for instance. What does that mean?

Or, in English, “I’ll take care of him.” This famously ambiguous expression may mean “I’ll take good care of him” or “I’ll get rid of him.”

Best,

David

8

amen, spiphany :slight_smile:

edit: except for the part about the avatar, I just mean the communication stuff is worth amening :wink:

9

granted in latin the sentence ‘i walked’ may be perfect or imperfect depending upon the context but why am i being told by other sources that in
english without a translation into latin but simply staying in english permanently the sentence:

I walked


Is always considered perfect



thanks.

10

granted in latin the phrase ‘i walked’ can be either perfect or imperfect. I received the following reply concerning the statement over what ‘i walked’ is in english. Is it the perfect or imperfect when it appears alone with nothing else around it? (say it was written alone on a piece of paper):


______
Quote from another website for english grammar:




The perfect tense is used for something completed.

“The girl walked to school” - we assume she reached school and got on with her lessons.

The imperfect tense is used for something not completed.

“The girl was walking to school when she tripped over a dog” - we don’t know how she fared; she may have got up unharmed and, as far as we know, she is still walking.

Following this rule -

I walked - perfect tense.


______


maybe in latin if you see ‘I walked’ by itself then this could be either perfect or imperfect but in english they are telling me that ‘i walked’ is always perfect when it appears alone. If this is true are you sure that

‘i walked’

in latin if it appears all by itself with nothing around it is not always perfect too?

If in latin you just pick up a piece of paper and it says on it ‘i walked’ then it should be perfect. No?


thanks.

11

No, “I walked” is considered the simple past. “I have walked” is the perfect. The distinction between the simple past and the (present) perfect is not always easy to identify in English, although you should find that to describe a given situation they are generally not interchangable.

This webpage has a fairly clear (although a bit simplified) explanation of the English verb system which may help you:
http://leo.stcloudstate.edu/grammar/tenses.html

12

I just wanted to add that it’s misleading to speak of “imperfect” when it comes to English (and like spiphany says, “perfect” in English should only refer to forms like “have walked”). English makes a different distinction than Latin, and the basic contrast is progressive vs. non-progressive rather than imperfective vs. perfective.

A good example is verbs in English that denote states, like “know” or “believe”, which (normally) don’t have progressive forms but their simple pasts are often translated into Latin as imperfects because they’re not completed actions.

I think maybe some of the confusion is that most of the time the simple past in English does have the same force as a Latin perfect so they might seem equivalent but in English it is just a result of context while in Latin it’s part of the meaning of the verb form. Does that make sense?

Thymio

13

granted, this is correct. if i see a piece of paper in english and it says simply ‘I walked’ on it it is the simple past.

I believe the point of the problem is that if your looking at such an english sentence there is your answer right there. It is the simple past. If it had said ‘I was walking’ then it is imperfect. It is had said “I had walked” then it is perfect.

If you add something to any of the above sentences such as where you were or what you were doing then it will alter the tense.

What i did not get is that in latin it would already supposedly be in one of the two forms:

AMBULABAM
AMBULAVI


If you see a sentence using either of these then they should immediately match the rules for that tense (ex: imperfect is an incomplete action so the sentence could still be going on and the verb would be in the imperfect)

translation should be no problem because the contextual clues are right there.


English:

I walked: Simple past
I had walked: Perfect
I was walking: Imperfect

If you see a sentence in latin like:

DOMINA BONA SERVAS NON TERRABATIS

You know it is in the imperfect.

If you see:

HERI TEMPLA SPECTAVIMUS; ERAS ROMAE MANEBIMUS


Using any of these five models (if correct) you should be able to tell how to translate the latin into the english or reversed and if you just hear it you should know what it goes in (imperfect or imperfect) either way.

Correct?

thanks.

14

I unfortunately don’t have time to address the questions in your last post, but here’s one comment.

I had walked is not the English present perfect; rather, it’s the English past perfect. I have walked (he has walked, etc.) corresponds to one meaning of the Latin perfect tense.

Note that I had walked corresponds to the Latin pluperfect, id est, ambulaveram

david