Garth Wallace wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 5:40 PM, Linvi Charles <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> When participles are put into the following three categories, what does
>> "past", "present" and "future" represent?  Tense?  Aspect?
>>
>> Past participle
>> Present participle
>> Future participle
> 
> Well, past/present/future seems on the face of it to be a tense
> distinction. 

That's because of the traditional terminology. In all the languages I 
know with such participles the distinctions are _aspectual_, not 
temporal (tense).

The so-called 'present participle' is, as Trask says, "the traditional 
name for what is more properly called the *imperfective participle*." 
Such participles do have a tendency also to be active, but languages 
with passive imperfective participles also occur.

Of the so-called 'past participle', Trask says "a traditional label for 
what is more accurately called the *perfect participle*." In English 
such participles have a passive meaning if the verb is transitive; but 
many languages have active and passive perfect participles.

Similarly, the much less common 'future participle' is more accurately a 
*prospective participle*.
--------------------------------------------------

David J. Peterson wrote:
[snip]
 >
 > vidi = "to see"
 > vidata = "being seen"
 > vidita = "having been seen"
 > vidota = "going/about to be seen"
 > vidanta ="seeing"
 > vidinta = "having seen"
 > vidonta = "going/about to see"

Yep - and these may be combined with 'esti' (to be) to give a rich 
system of tense and aspect (as well, of course, as distinguishing 
between active and passive voice).
-------------------------------------------------

Scott Hlad wrote:
[snip]
 >
 > Koine Greek participles are inflected for tense, voice, case, gender and
 > number. That's a lot to parse out of one word!

No, no! Both ancient Greek & Koine Greek had only two tenses: past and 
non-past. The difference was shown by (a) a 'temporal augment' (usually 
e-) prefixed to the verb and, usually, a different set of personal 
endings (except for 1st & 2nd persons plural). Only the *indicative* 
mood showed tense in the ancient & Koine language.

Neither the subjunctive, imperative and optative (moribund in Koine) 
moods showed tense, nor did the many infinitive and participles. The 
differences were strictly _aspectual_. The ancient & Koine language 
distinguishes imperfective, perfective ('aorist'), perfect and 
prospective aspects.

Only _aspect and voice_ are due due to the _verbal_ function of participles.

The 'case, gender and number' is because they are _adjectival_. In any 
language where there is adjectival agreement there will be at least two 
of these categories to parse, e.g. in Esperanto one has case and number 
to parse.

-- 
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
"Ein Kopf, der auf seine eigene Kosten denkt,
wird immer Eingriffe in die Sprache thun."
[J.G. Hamann, 1760]
"A mind that thinks at its own expense
will always interfere with language".