Kullanıcı:Srhat/çalışma

Şablon:Grammatical categories Görünüş eylem tarafından bildirilen iş, oluş veya durumun zamanın akışıyla nasıl ilişkilendiğini belirten bir gramer ulamıdır.

Görünüşler arasındaki en büyük ayrım bitmişlik görünüşü ve bitmemişlik görünüşü arasındaki ayrımdır (bitmiş ve bitmemiş eylem biçimleriyle karıştırılmamalıdır, fiil zamanı olarak bitmiş ve bitmemiş zaman görünüşten farklı anlamlar ifade eder). Bitmişlik görünüşü, bağımlı ve bir bütün halinde algılanan, yani herhangi bir zaman sürecine değinmeyen ("Ona yardım ettim" gibi) olaylardan bahsedilirken kullanılır. Bitmemişlik görünüşü ise zaman ilerlerken sürekli veya yinelemeli olarak var olduğu algılanan durumlardan, yani tek bir başlama ve tamamlanma süreci bulunmayan durumlardan bahsedilirken ("Ona yardım ediyordum" (sürekli), "Önceden insanlara ederdim" (yinelemeli)) kullanılır. Bu ayrım daha da derinleştirilerek durum fiilleriyle devam eden fiiller (süreklilik görünüşü) ve yinelemeli fiiller (alışkanlık görünüşü) arasındaki ayrımdan söz edilebilir.

Farklı görünüşler, olay, gönderme zamanı (reference time) ve olayın zamanı arasındaki ilişki farklılıklarını ifade eder. Örneğin bitmişlik görünüşü, fiilin, gönderme zamanından önce başladığı ama fiilin gönderme zamanıyla hala bağlantılı olduğunu ifade eden görünüştür: "Yedim", "yemiştim", "yemiş olacağım".

Çeşitli diller farklı farklı görünüş ayrımları yapmaktadır. Bazı diller (Standart Almanca gibi, aşağı bakınız) hiçbir ayrım yapmamaktadır. Görünüşün belirtilmesi sıklıkla eylem zamanının ve kipinin belirtilmesiyle beraber gerçekleşir (zaman-görünüş-kipe bakınız). Görünüşsel ayrımlar belirli zamanlara kısıtlanabilir: Latincede ve Roman dillerinde bitmişlik-bitmemişlik ayrımı geçmiş zaman üzerinde, tamamlanmamış geçmiş zaman (imperfect) ve tamamlanmış geçmiş zaman (preterite) arasındaki ayrımla belirtilir. Görünüşün ayrı bir ulam (kategori) olarak dikkate alınması fikri ilk olarak Slav dillerinin incelenmesi sonucu ortaya çıktı. Slav dillerinde fiiller çiftler halinde bulunur, iki fiilden birisi bitmemiş anlamda öbürü bitmiş anlamda kullanılır.

Temel kavram

Tarih

Hint dil bilimci Yaska tamamlanmış bir bütün olarak algılanan fiiller (mūrta) ile süreç halinde olan fiiller (bhāva) arasında ayrım yaparak görünüş konusuyla ilgilenmiştir. Bitmişlik ve bitmemişlik arasındaki temel ayrım budur. Yaska ayrıca bu ayrımı fiillerle eylem adları arasında da yapmıştır. Şablon:Reference needed

Yunan ve Latince dillerinin gramercileri de bu görünüş konusuyla ilgilenmişlerdir. Ancak görünüş konusu 19. yüzyılda Slav dillerinin grameri üzerinde yapılan çalışmalara kadar Batının gramer geleneklerine girmemiştir. Görünüş teriminin İngilizcesi olan grammatical aspect teriminin en erken kullanımı 1853 yılına dayanmaktadır.

Günümüzde kullanımı

Görünüş genelde kendisiyle yakından bağlantılı olan zaman kavramıyla karıştırılmaktadır, çünkü ikisi de zamanla ilgili bilgi iletmektedir. Zaman (tense), olay zamanını başka bir zamanla, genelde konuşma zamanıyla, ilişkilendirir. Görünüş ise zamanla ilgili başka bilgileri iletir. Bu bilgiler eylemin süresi, tamamlanmışlığı veya tekrarlanmışlığı gibi eylemin zamanıyla ile bağlantılı bilgilerdir. Dolayısıyla zaman (tense) eylemin "zaman sürecinde ne zaman" olduğuyla ilgili bilgi verirken görünüş de eylemin "zaman sürecinde nasıl" olduğuyla ilgili bilgi verir. Görünüş, eylemin gerçekleşme zamanının niteliği, yani zamanda tek bir nokta olması, belirli bir noktalar dizisi olması veya zamanın kesiksiz bir parçası olması gibi özelliklerini anlatır. Zaman (tense) ise eylemin gerçekleşme zamanının konumunu, yani zaman şeridinin neresinde olduğunu belirtir.

Örneğin şu cümleleri düşünün: "geldi" ve "gelmiş" ve ". Bu cümlelerin ikisi de geçmiş zamandadır. Ancak kullanıldıkları bağlama göre farklı görünüşleri ifade edebilmektedirler. Mesela

Grammatical aspect is a formal property of a language, distinguished through overt inflection, derivational affixes, or independent words that serve as grammatically required markers of those aspects. For example, the K'iche' language spoken in Guatemala has the inflectional prefixes k- and x- to mark incompletive and completive aspect; Mandarin Chinese has the aspect markers -le 了, -zhe 着, zài- 在, and -guò 过 to mark the perfective, durative stative, durative progressive, and experiential aspects, and also marks aspect with adverbs; and English marks the continuous aspect with the verb to be coupled with present participle and the perfect with the verb to have coupled with past participle. Even languages that do not mark aspect morphologically or through auxiliary verbs, however, can convey such distinctions by the use of adverbs or other syntactic constructions.

Grammatical aspect is distinguished from lexical aspect or aktionsart, which is an inherent feature of verbs or verb phrases and is determined by the nature of the situation that the verb describes.

Common aspectual distinctions

The most fundamental aspectual distinction, represented in many languages, is between perfective aspect and imperfective aspect. This is the basic aspectual distinction in the Slavic languages. It semantically corresponds to the distinction between the morphological forms known respectively as the aorist and imperfect in Greek, the preterite and imperfect in Spanish, the simple past (passé simple) and imperfect in French, and the perfect and imperfect in Latin (from the Latin "perfectus", meaning "completed").

Essentially, the perfective aspect looks at an event as a complete action, while the imperfective aspect views an event as the process of unfolding or a repeated or habitual event (thus corresponding to the progressive/continuous aspect for events of short-term duration and to habitual aspect for longer terms). For events of short durations in the past, the distinction often coincides with the distinction in the English language between the simple past "X-ed," as compared to the progressive "was X-ing" (compare "I wrote the letters this morning" (i.e. finished writing the letters: an action completed) and "I was writing letters this morning"). In describing longer time periods, English needs context to maintain the distinction between the habitual ("I called him often in the past" - a habit that has no point of completion) and perfective ("I called him once" - an action completed), although the construct "used to" marks both habitual aspect and past tense and can be used if the aspectual distinction otherwise is not clear.

Sometimes, English has a lexical distinction where other languages may use the distinction in grammatical aspect. For example, the English verbs "to know" (the state of knowing) and "to find out" (knowing viewed as a "completed action") correspond to the imperfect and perfect of the French verb "savoir" and the Spanish equivalent "saber."

Aspect vs. tense

The Germanic languages combine the concept of aspect with the concept of tense. Although English largely separates tense and aspect formally, its aspects (neutral, progressive, perfect, progressive perfect, and [in the past tense] habitual) do not correspond very closely to the distinction of perfective vs. imperfective that is found in most languages with aspect. Furthermore, the separation of tense and aspect in English is not maintained rigidly. One instance of this is the alternation, in some forms of English, between sentences such as "Have you eaten yet?" and "Did you eat yet?". Another is in the pluperfect ("I had eaten"), which sometimes represents the combination of past tense and perfect ("I was full because I had already eaten"), but sometimes simply represents a past action that is anterior to another past action ("A little while after I had eaten, my friend arrived"). (The latter situation is often represented in other languages by a simple perfective tense. Formal Spanish and French use a past anterior tense in cases such as this.)

Like tense, aspect is a way that verbs represent time. However, rather than locating an event or state in time, the way tense does, aspect describes "the internal temporal constituency of a situation", or in other words, aspect is a way "of conceiving the flow of the process itself". English aspectual distinctions in the past tense include "I went, I used to go, I was going, I had gone"; in the present tense "I lose, I am losing, I have lost, I have been losing, I am going to lose"; and with the future modal "I will see, I will be seeing, I will have seen, I am going to see". What distinguishes these aspects within each tense is not (necessarily) when the event occurs, but how the time in which it occurs is viewed: as complete, ongoing, consequential, planned, etc.

In most dialects of Ancient Greek, aspect is indicated uniquely by verbal morphology. For example, the very frequently used aorist, though a functional preterite in the indicative mood, conveys historic or 'immediate' aspect in the subjunctive and optative. The perfect in all moods is used as an aspectual marker, conveying the sense of a resultant state. E.g. Grekçe: ὁράω - I see (present); Grekçe: εἶδον - I saw (aorist); Grekçe: οἶδα - I am in a state of having seen = I know (perfect).

Many Sino-Tibetan languages, like Mandarin, lack grammatical tense but are rich in aspect.

Lexical vs. grammatical aspect

Ana madde: Lexical aspect

There is a distinction between grammatical aspect, as described here, and lexical aspect. Lexical aspect is an inherent property of a verb or verb-complement phrase, and is not marked formally. The distinctions made as part of lexical aspect are different from those of grammatical aspect. Typical distinctions are between states ("I owned"), activities ("I shopped"), accomplishments ("I painted a picture"), achievements ("I bought"), and punctual, or semelfactive, events ("I sneezed"). These distinctions are often relevant syntactically. For example, states and activities, but not usually achievements, can be used in English with a prepositional for-phrase describing a time duration: "I had a car for five hours", "I shopped for five hours", but not "*I bought a car for five hours". Lexical aspect is sometimes called Aktionsart, especially by German and Slavic linguists. Lexical or situation aspect is marked in Athabaskan languages.

One of the factors in situation aspect is telicity. Telicity might be considered a kind of lexical aspect, except that it is typically not a property of a verb in isolation, but rather a property of an entire verb phrase. Achievements, accomplishments and semelfactives have telic situation aspect, while states and activities have atelic situation aspect.

The other factor in situation aspect is duration, which is also a property of a verb phrase. Accomplishments, states, and activities have duration, while achievements and semelfactives do not.

Indicating aspect

In some languages, aspect and time are very clearly separated, making them much more distinct to their speakers. There are a number of languages that mark aspect much more saliently than time. Prominent in this category are Chinese and American Sign Language, which both differentiate many aspects but rely exclusively on optional time-indicating terms to pinpoint an action with respect to time. In other language groups, for example in most modern Indo-European languages (except Slavic languages), aspect has become almost entirely conflated, in the verbal morphological system, with time.

In Russian, aspect is more salient than tense in narrative. Russian, like other Slavic languages, uses different lexical entries for the different aspects, whereas other languages mark them morphologically, and still others with auxiliaries (e.g., English).

In literary Arabic (الفصحى, al-Fusha) the verb has two aspect-tenses: perfective (past), and imperfective (non-past). There is some disagreement among grammarians whether to view the distinction as a distinction in aspect, or tense, or both. The "Past Verb" (فعل ماضي, fi'l maadiy) denotes an event (حدث, hadath) completed in the past, but says nothing about the relation of this past event to present status. For example, "وصل", wasala, "he arrived", indicates that arrival occurred in the past without saying anything about the present status of the arriver - maybe he stuck around, maybe he turned around and left, etc. - nor about the aspect of the past event except insofar as completeness can be considered aspectual. This "Past Verb" is clearly similar if not identical to the Greek Aorist, which is considered a tense but is more of an aspect marker. In the Arabic, aorist aspect is the logical consequence of past tense. By contrast, the "Verb of Similarity" (فعل المضارع, fi'l al-mudaara'ah), so called because of its resemblance to the active participial noun, is considered to denote an event in the present or future without committing to a specific aspectual sense beyond the incompleteness implied by the tense: يضرب "yadribu", he strikes/is striking/will strike/etc. Those are the only two "tenses" in Arabic (not counting "أمر"، "amr", command, which the tradition counts as denoting future events.) At least that's the way the tradition sees it. To explicitly mark aspect, Arabic uses a variety of lexical and syntactic devices.

Contemporary Arabic dialects are another matter. One major change from al-Fusha is the use of a prefix particle (ب "bi" in most dialects) to explicitly mark progressive, continuous, or habitual aspect: بيكتب, bi-yiktib, he is now writing, writes all the time, etc.

Aspect can mark the stage of an action. The prospective aspect is a combination of tense and aspect that indicates the action is in preparation to take place. The inceptive aspect identifies the beginning stage of an action (e.g. Esperanto uses ek-, e.g. Mi ekmanĝas, "I am beginning to eat.") and inchoative and ingressive aspects identify a change of state (The flowers started blooming) or the start of an action (He started running). Aspects of stage continue through progressive, pausative, resumptive, cessive, and terminative.

Important qualifications:

• Although the perfective is often thought of as representing a "momentary action", this is not strictly correct. It can equally well be used for an action that took time, as long as it is conceived of as a unit, with a clearly defined start and end, such as "Last summer I visited France".
• Grammatical aspect represents a formal distinction encoded in the grammar of a language. Although languages that are described as having imperfective and perfective aspects agree in most cases in their use of these aspects, they may not agree in every situation. For example:
  • Some languages have additional grammatical aspects. Spanish and Ancient Greek, for example, have a perfect (not the same as the perfective), which refers to a state resulting from a previous action (also described as a previous action with relevance to a particular time, or a previous action viewed from the perspective of a later time). This corresponds (roughly) to the "have X-ed" construction in English, as in "I have recently eaten". Languages that lack this aspect (such as Portuguese, which is closely related to Spanish) often use the past perfective to render the present perfect (compare the roughly synonymous English sentences "Have you eaten yet?" and "Did you eat yet?").
  • In some languages, the formal representation of aspect is optional, and can be omitted when the aspect is clear from context or does not need to be emphasized. This is the case, for example, in Mandarin Chinese, with the perfective suffix le and (especially) the imperfective zhe.
  • For some verbs in some languages, the difference between perfective and imperfective conveys an additional meaning difference; in such cases, the two aspects are typically translated using separate verbs in English. In Greek, for example, the imperfective sometimes adds the notion of "try to do something" (the so-called conative imperfect); hence the same verb, in the imperfective (present or imperfect) and aorist, respectively, is used to convey look and see, search and find, listen and hear. (For example, ηκουομεν ēkouomen "we listened" vs. ηκουσαμεν ēkousamen "we heard".) Spanish has similar pairs for certain verbs, such as (imperfect and preterite, respectively) sabía "I knew" vs. supe "I found out", podía "I was able to" vs. pude "I succeeded (in doing something)", quería "I wanted to" vs. quise "I tried to", no quería "I did not want to" vs. no quise "I refused (to do something)". Such differences are often highly language-specific.

Aspect by language

English

The English tense–aspect system has two morphologically distinct tenses, present and past. No marker of a future tense exists on the verb in English; the futurity of an event may be expressed through the use of the auxiliary verbs "will" and "shall", by a present form plus an adverb, as in "tomorrow we go to New York City", or by some other means. Past is distinguished from present–future, in contrast, with internal modifications of the verb. These two tenses may be modified further for progressive aspect (also called continuous aspect), for the perfect, or for both. These two aspectual forms are also referred to as BE +ING and HAVE +EN, respectively, which avoids what may be unfamiliar terminology.

Aspects of the present tense:

• Present simple (not progressive, not perfect): "I eat"
• Present progressive (progressive, not perfect): "I am eating"
• Present perfect (not progressive, perfect): "I have eaten"
• Present perfect progressive (progressive, perfect): "I have been eating"

(While many elementary discussions of English grammar classify the present perfect as a past tense, it relates the action to the present time. One cannot say of someone now deceased that he "has eaten" or "has been eating". The present auxiliary implies that he is in some way present (alive), even if the action denoted is completed (perfect) or partially completed (progressive perfect).)

Aspects of the past tense:

• Past simple (not progressive, not perfect): "I ate"
• Past progressive (progressive, not perfect): "I was eating"
• Past perfect (not progressive, perfect): "I had eaten"
• Past perfect progressive (progressive, perfect): "I had been eating"

Aspects can also be marked on non-finite forms of the verb: "(to) be eating" (infinitive with progressive aspect), "(to) have eaten" (infinitive with perfect aspect), "having eaten" (present participle or gerund with perfect aspect), etc. The perfect infinitive can further be governed by modal verbs to express various meanings, mostly combining modality with past reference: "I should have eaten" etc. In particular, the modals will and shall and their subjunctive forms would and should are used to combine future or hypothetical reference with aspectual meaning:

• Simple future, simple conditional: "I will eat", "I would eat"
• Future progressive, conditional progressive: "I will be eating", "I would be eating"
• Future perfect, conditional perfect: "I will have eaten", "I would have eaten"
• Future perfect progressive, conditional perfect progressive: "I will have been eating", "I would have been eating"

The uses of the progressive and perfect aspects are quite complex. They may refer to the viewpoint of the speaker:

I was walking down the road when I met Michael Jackson's lawyer. (Speaker viewpoint in middle of action)

I have traveled widely, but I have never been to Moskova. (Speaker viewpoint at end of action)

But they can have other illocutionary forces or additional modal components:

You are being stupid now. (You are doing it deliberately)

You are not having chocolate with your sausages! (I forbid it)

I am having lunch with Mike tomorrow. (It is decided)

For further discussion of the uses of the various tense–aspect combinations, see Uses of English verb forms.

English expresses some other aspectual distinctions with other constructions. Used to + VERB is a past habitual, as in "I used to go to school", and going to / gonna + VERB is a prospective, a future situation highlighting current intention or expectation, as in "I'm going to go to school next year".

Note that the aspectual systems of certain dialects of English, such as African-American Vernacular English (see for example habitual be), and of creoles based on English vocabulary, such as Hawaiian Creole English, are quite different from those of standard English, and often distinguish aspect at the expense of tense.

German vernacular and colloquial

Although Standard German does not have aspects, many Upper German languages, all West Central German languages, and some more vernacular German languages do make one aspectual distinction, and so do the colloquial languages of many regions, the so-called German regiolects. While officially discouraged in schools and seen as 'bad language', local English teachers like the distinction, because it corresponds well with the English continuous form. It is formed by the conjugated auxiliary verb "sein" (to be) followed by the preposition "am" and the infinitive, or the nominalized verb. The latter two are phonetically indistinguishable; in writing, capitalization differs: "Ich war am essen" vs. "Ich war am Essen" (I was eating, compared to the Standard German approximation: "Ich war beim Essen"); yet these forms are not standardized and thus are relatively infrequently written down or printed, even in quotations or direct speech. If written, the first form (the infinitive) is preferred.

In the Tyrolean and other Bavarian regiolect the prefix *da can be found, which form perfective aspects. "I hu's gleant" (Ich habe es gelernt = I learnt it) vs. "I hu's daleant" (*Ich habe es DAlernt = I succeeded in learning).

Slavic languages

Ana madde: Grammatical aspect in Slavic languages

The Slavic languages make a clear distinction between perfective and imperfective aspects; it was in relation to these languages that the modern concept of aspect originally developed.

In Slavic languages, a given verb is, in itself, either perfective or imperfective. Consequently each language contains many pairs of verbs, corresponding to each other in meaning, except that one expresses perfective aspect and the other imperfective. (This may be considered a form of lexical aspect.) Perfective verbs are commonly formed from imperfective ones by the addition of a prefix, or else the imperfective verb is formed from the perfective one by modification of the stem or ending. Suppletion also plays a small role. Perfective verbs cannot generally be used with the meaning of a present tense – their present-tense forms in fact have future reference. An example of such a pair of verbs, from Polish, is given below:

• Infinitive (and dictionary form): pisać ("to write", imperfective); napisać ("to write", perfective)
• Present/simple future tense: pisze ("writes"); napisze ("will write", perfective)
• Compound future tense (imperfective only): będzie pisać ("will write, will be writing")
• Past tense: pisał ("was writing, used to write, wrote", imperfective); napisał ("wrote", perfective)

In at least the East Slavic and West Slavic languages, there is a three-way aspect differentiation for verbs of motion, with two forms of imperfective, determinate and indeterminate, and one form of perfective. The two forms of imperfective can be used in all three tenses (past, present, and future), but the perfective can only be used with past and future. The indeterminate imperfective expresses habitual aspect (or motion in no single direction), while the determinate imperfective expresses progressive aspect. The difference corresponds closely to that between the English "I (regularly) go to school" and "I am going to school (now)". The three-way difference is given below for the Russian basic (unprefixed) verbs of motion. When prefixes are attached to Russian verbs of motion, they become more-or-less normal imperfective/perfective pairs, although the prefixes are generally attached to the indeterminate imperfective to form the prefixed imperfective and to the determinate imperfective to form the prefixed perfective. For example, prefix при- + indeterminate ходи́ть = приходи́ть; and prefix при- + determinate идти́ = прийти (to arrive (on foot)).

Russian Verbs of Motion
Imperfective		Perfective	Translation
Indeterminate	Determinate
ходи́ть	идти́	пойти	to go by foot (walk)
е́здить	е́хать	поехать	to go by transport (drive, train, bus, etc.)
бе́гать	бежа́ть	побежать	to run
броди́ть	брести́	побрести	to stroll, to wander
гоня́ть	гнать	погнать	to chase, to drive (cattle, etc.)
ла́зить	лезть	полезть	to climb
лета́ть	лете́ть	полететь	to fly
пла́вать	плыть	поплыть	to swim, to sail
по́лзать	ползти́	поползти	to crawl
вози́ть	везти́	повезти	to carry (by vehicle)
носи́ть	нести́	понести	to carry, to wear
води́ть	вести́	повести	to lead, to accompany, to drive (a car)
таска́ть	тащи́ть	потащить	to drag, to pull
ката́ть	кати́ть	покатить	to roll

Romance languages

Modern Romance languages merge the concepts of aspect and tense, but consistently distinguish perfective and imperfective aspects in the past tense. This derives directly from the way the Latin language used to render both aspects and consecutio temporum.

Italian language example (verb mangiare, to eat):

Mood: indicativo (indicative)

• Presente (present): io mangio ("I eat", "I'm eating") - merges habitual and continuous aspects, among others
• Passato prossimo (recent past): io ho mangiato ("I ate", "I have eaten") - merges perfective and perfect

• Imperfetto (imperfect): io mangiavo ("I was eating", or "I usually ate") - merges habitual and progressive aspects
• Trapassato prossimo (recent pluperfect): io avevo mangiato ("I had eaten") - tense, not ordinarily marked for aspect

• Passato remoto (far past): io mangiai (I "ate") - perfective aspect
• Trapassato remoto (far pluperfect): io ebbi mangiato ("I had eaten") - tense

• Futuro semplice (simple future): io mangerò ("I shall eat") - tense
• Futuro anteriore (future perfect): io avrò mangiato ("I shall have eaten") - future tense and perfect tense/aspect

The imperfetto/trapassato prossimo contrasts with the passato remoto/trapassato remoto in that imperfetto renders an imperfective (continuous) past while passato remoto expresses an aorist (punctual/historical) past.

Other aspects in Italian are rendered with other periphrases, like prospective (io sto per mangiare "I'm about to eat", io starò per mangiare "I shall be about to eat"), or continuous/progressive (io sto mangiando "I'm eating", io starò mangiando "I shall be eating").

Finnic languages

Finnish and Estonian, among others, have a grammatical aspect contrast of telicity between telic and atelic. Telic sentences signal that the intended goal of an action is achieved. Atelic sentences do not signal whether any such goal has been achieved. The aspect is indicated by the case of the object: accusative is telic and partitive is atelic. For example, the (implicit) purpose of shooting is to kill, such that:

• Ammuin karhun -- "I shot the bear (succeeded; it is done)" i.e., "I shot the bear dead".
• Ammuin karhua -- "I shot at the bear" i.e. the bear may have survived.

In rare cases corresponding telic and atelic forms can be unrelated by meaning.

Derivational suffixes exist for various aspects. Examples:

• -ahta- "once" as in huudahtaa "to yell once" (used for verbs like laugh, smile, growl, bark, is not used for verbs like shoot, say, drink)
• -ele- "repeatedly" as in ammuskella "to go shooting around"

There are derivational suffixes for verbs, which carry frequentative, momentane, causative, and inchoative aspect meanings also, pairs of verbs differing only in transitivity exist.

Philippine languages

Ana madde: Tagalog grammar § Conjugation Chart

Like many Austronesian languages, the verbs of the Philippine languages follow a complex system of affixes to express subtle changes in meaning. However, the verbs in this family of languages are conjugated to express the aspects and not the tenses. Though many of the Philippine languages do not have a fully codified grammar, most of them follow the verb aspects that are demonstrated by Filipino or Tagalog.

Hawaiian

The Hawaiian language conveys aspect as follows:

• The unmarked verb, frequently used, can indicate habitual aspect or perfective aspect in the past.

• ke + verb + nei is frequently used and conveys the progressive aspect in the present.

• e + verb + ana conveys the progressive aspect in any tense.

• ua + verb conveys the perfective aspect but is frequently omitted.

Creole languages

Creole languages, typically use the unmarked verb for timeless habitual aspect, or for stative aspect, or for perfective aspect in the past. Invariant pre-verbal markers are often used. Non-stative verbs typically can optionally be marked for the progressive, habitual, completive, or irrealis aspect. The progressive in English-based Atlantic Creoles often uses de (from English "be"). Jamaican Creole uses pan (from English "upon") for the present progressive and wa (from English "was") for the past progressive. Haitian Creole uses the progressive marker ap. Some Atlantic Creoles use one marker for both the habitual and progressive aspects. In Tok Pisin, the optional progressive marker follows the verb. Completive markers tend to come from superstrate words like "done" or "finish", and some creoles model the future/irrealis marker on the superstrate word for "go".

American Sign Language

American Sign Language (ASL) is similar to many other sign languages in that it has no grammatical tense but many verbal aspects produced by modifying the base verb sign.

An example is illustrated with the verb TELL. The basic form of this sign is produced with the initial posture of the index finger on the chin, followed by a movement of the hand and finger tip toward the indirect object (the recipient of the telling). Inflected into the unrealized inceptive aspect ('to be just about to tell'), the sign begins with the hand moving from in front of the trunk in an arc to the initial posture of the base sign (i.e. index finger touching the chin) while inhaling through the mouth, dropping of the jaw, directing eye gaze toward the verb's object. The posture is then held rather than moved toward the indirect object. During the hold, the signer also stops the breath by closing the glottis. Other verbs (such as 'look at', 'wash the dishes', 'yell', 'flirt') are inflected into the unrealized inceptive aspect similarly: the hands used in the base sign move in an arc from in front of the trunk to the initial posture of the underlying verb sign while inhaling, dropping the jaw, and directing eye gaze toward the verb's object (if any), but subsequent movements and postures are dropped as the posture and breath are held.

Other aspects in ASL include the following: stative, inchoative ("to begin to..."), predisposional ("to tend to..."), susceptative ("to... easily"), frequentative ("to... often"), protractive ("to... continuously"), incessant ("to... incessantly"), durative ("to... for a long time"), iterative ("to... over and over again"), intensive ("to... very much"), resultative ("to... completely"), approximative ("to... somewhat"), semblitive ("to appear to..."), increasing ("to... more and more"). Some aspects combine with others to create yet finer distinctions.

Aspect is unusual in ASL in that transitive verbs derived for aspect lose their grammatical transitivity. They remain semantically transitive, typically assuming an object made prominent using a topic marker or mentioned in a previous sentence. See Syntax in ASL for details.

Terms for various aspects

The following aspectual terms are found in the literature. Approximate English equivalents are given.

• Perfective: 'I struck the bell' (an event viewed in its entirety, without reference to its temporal structure during its occurrence)
• Momentane: 'The mouse squeaked once' (contrasted to 'The mouse squeaked / was squeaking')
• Perfect (a common conflation of aspect and tense): 'I have arrived' (brings attention to the consequences of a situation in the past)
  • Recent perfect, also known as after perfect: 'I just ate' or 'I am after eating' (Hiberno-English)
• Prospective (a conflation of aspect and tense): 'He is about to fall', 'I am going to cry" (brings attention to the anticipation of an imminent future situation)
• Imperfective (an activity with ongoing nature: combines the meanings of both the progressive and the habitual aspects): 'I was walking to work' (progressive) or 'I walked (used to walk, would walk) to work every day' (habitual).
• Continuous: 'I am eating' or 'I know' (situation is described as ongoing and either evolving or unevolving; a subtype of imperfective)
• Progressive: 'I am eating' (action is described as ongoing and evolving; a subtype of continuous)
• Stative: 'I know French' (situation is described as ongoing but not evolving; a subtype of continuous)
• Habitual: 'I used to walk home from work', 'I would walk home from work every day', 'I walk home from work every day' (a subtype of imperfective)
• Gnomic/generic: 'Fish swim and birds fly' (general truths)
• Episodic: 'The bird flew' (non-gnomic)
• Continuative aspect: 'I am still eating'
• Inceptive or ingressive: 'I started to run' (beginning of a new action: dynamic)
• Inchoative: 'The flowers started to bloom' (beginning of a new state: static)
• Terminative ~ cessative: 'I finished eating/reading'
• Defective: 'I almost fell'
• Pausative: 'I stopped working for a while'
• Resumptive: 'I resumed sleeping'
• Punctual: 'I slept'
• Durative: 'I slept for a while'
• Delimitative: 'I slept for an hour'
• Protractive: 'The argument went on and on'
• Iterative: 'I read the same books again and again'
• Frequentative: 'It sparkled', contrasted with 'It sparked'. Or, 'I run around', vs. 'I run'
• Experiential: 'I have gone to school many times'
• Intentional: 'I listened carefully'
• Accidental: 'I accidentally knocked over the chair'
• Intensive: 'It glared'
• Moderative: 'It shone'
• Attenuative: 'It glimmered'

See also

• Aktionsart
• Ancient Greek grammar: Dependence of moods and tenses
• Grammatical conjugation
• Grammatical tense
• Grammatical mood
• Nominal TAM (tense–aspect–mood)
• Tense–aspect–mood

Other references

• Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics (ISBN 0-415-20319-8), by Hadumod Bussmann, edited by Gregory P. Trauth and Kerstin Kazzazi, Routledge, London 1996. Translation of German Lexikon der Sprachwissenschaft Kröner Verlag, Stuttgart 1990.
• Morfofonologian harjoituksia, Lauri Carlson

• Bache, C. (1982). Aspect and Aktionsart: Towards a semantic distinction. Journal of Linguistics, 18(01), 57-72.
• Berdinetto, P. M., & Delfitto, D. (2000). Aspect vs. Actionality: Some reasons for keeping them apart. In O. Dahl (Ed.), Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe (pp. 189–226). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Binnick, R. I. (1991). Time and the verb: A guide to tense and aspect. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Binnick, R. I. (2006). Aspect and Aspectuality. In B. Aarts & A. M. S. McMahon (Eds.), The Handbook of English Linguistics (pp. 244–268). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
• Chertkova, M. Y. (2004). Vid or Aspect? On the Typology of a Slavic and Romance Category [Using Russian and Spanish Material]. Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta, Filologiya, 58(9-1), 97-122.
• Comrie, B. (1976). Aspect: An introduction to the study of verbal aspect and related problems. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Frawley, W. (1992). Linguistic semantics. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Kortmann, B. (1991). The Triad "Tense–Aspect–Aktionsart". Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 6, 9-30.
• MacDonald, J. E. (2008). The syntactic nature of inner aspect: A minimalist perspective. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Pub. Co.
• Maslov, I. S. (1998). Vid glagol'nyj [Aspect of the verb]. In V. N. Yartseva (Ed.), Jazykoznanie: Bol'shoj entsyklopedicheskij slovar' (pp. 83–84). Moscow: Bol'shaja Rossijskaja Entsyklopedija.
• Richardson, K. (2007). Case and aspect in Slavic. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
• Sasse, H.-J. (2002). Recent activity in the theory of aspect: Accomplishments, achievements, or just non-progressive state? Linguistic Typology, 6(2), 199-271.
• Sasse, H.-J. (2006). Aspect and Aktionsart. In E. K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (Vol. 1, pp. 535–538). Boston: Elsevier.
• Smith, C. S. (1991). The parameter of aspect. Dordrecht; Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
• Tatevosov, S. (2002). The parameter of actionality. Linguistic Typology, 6(3), 317-401.
• Travis, L. (in preparation). Inner aspect.
• Verkuyl, H. (2005). How (in-)sensitive is tense to aspectual information? In B. Hollebrandse, A. van Hout & C. Vet (Eds.), Crosslinguistic views on tense, aspect and modality (pp. 145–169). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
• Zalizniak, A. A., & Shmelev, A. D. (2000). Vvedenie v russkuiu aspektologiiu [Introduction to Russian aspectology]. Moskva: IAzyki russkoi kul’tury.