Cover not available
Part of
Perfects in Indo-European Languages and Beyond
Edited by Robert Crellin and Thomas Jügel
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 352] 2020
► pp. 549–590

Chapter 16
The perfect system in Latin

| University of Cambridge
The Latin perfect system is argued to denote that an eventuality described by a predicate terminates prior to some moment in time, whether utterance time in the case of the ‘present’ perfect, or reference/topic time, in the case of the perfect infinitive, past and future forms. The ‘present’ perfect is argued to function as a perfective, while the past, future and infinitive perfect are argued to denote anteriority. Additional conditions are considered in order to explain the behaviour with state and achievement predicates. The participle in *-to- generally denotes that an eventuality described by the predicate terminates prior to topic time, as well as that an event’s poststate (if any) holds at topic time. As such the participle is generally passive in diathetical orientation, although there are exceptions. In certain kinds of predicate, namely those describing extent and mental state, the perfect loses direct reference to a prior event and refers only to an eventuality’s poststate.
Keywords: tense, viewpoint aspect, resultative, perfective, poststate, anterior, synthetic, analytic, non-active
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Formal overview
    • 1.2The problem of the semantics of the Latin perfect
    • 1.3Periodization of Latin
  • 2.Frameworks, terminology and definitions
    • 2.1Viewpoint aspect
    • 2.2Tense
    • 2.3Situation types
    • 2.4Conceptual moments
    • 2.5Change of state
    • 2.6Resultative
    • 2.7The semantics ~ pragmatics interface
  • 3.The semantics of the EL and CL perfect stems
    • 3.1Synthetic present perfect
      • 3.1.1Semantics and the sequence of tenses
      • 3.1.2Atomic predicates
      • 3.1.3States
      • 3.1.4Change of state
      • 3.1.5Gnomic uses
    • 3.2Synthetic past and future perfects
      • 3.2.1Semantics
      • 3.2.2Atomic predicates
      • 3.2.3States
      • 3.2.4Change of state
      • 3.2.5A note on the future perfect
    • 3.3Synthetic perfect infinitive
    • 3.4Defective synthetic forms
    • 3.5Participle in -tu- < *-to-
    • 3.6Analytic perfect
  • 4.Conclusion: Unity in the semantics of the perfect system?
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Formal semantics symbols and abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 23 September 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.352.16cre
References (96)
References
Acedo-Matellán, Víctor. 2016. The morphosyntax of transitions: A case study in Latin and other languages (Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics 62). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Adams, James N. 2011. Late Latin. In Clackson (ed.), 257–283.Google Scholar
Allen, Joseph H. & James B. Greenough. 1887. A Latin grammar founded on comparative grammar. Boston, MA: Ginn & Company.Google Scholar
Ayer, Meagan. 2014. Allen and Greenough’s new Latin grammar for schools and colleges. Carlisle, PA: Dickinson College Commentaries. [URL]. (October 10, 2018.)
Badian, Ernst. 1999. Licinius Lucullus (2), Lucius. In Simon Hornblower & Antony Spawforth (eds.), The Oxford Classical Dictionary. 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Baldi, Phillip. 1976. Remarks on the Latin R-form verbs. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 90. 222–257.Google Scholar
Bary, Corien. 2009. Aspect in Ancient Greek: A semantic analysis of the aorist and imperfective. Nijmegen: Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen dissertation. [URL]
. 2012. Tense in Ancient Greek Reports. Journal of Greek Linguistics 12:1. 29–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L., Revere D. Perkins & William Pagliuca. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Clackson, James. 2011a. Classical Latin. Clackson (ed.), 236–256.Google Scholar
(ed.). 2011b. A companion to the Latin language. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clackson, James & Geoffrey Horrocks. 2007. The Blackwell history of the Latin language. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Clark, Albert Curtis, ed. 1908. M. Tulli Ciceronis orationes. Vol. 1: Pro Sex. Roscio. De Imperio Cn. Pompei. Pro Cluentio. In Catilinam. Pro Murena. Pro Caelio. Oxford: Clarendon. [URL]
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Corbell, Anthony. 2013. Cicero and the intellectual milieu of the late Republic. In Catherine Steel (ed.), The Cambridge companion to Cicero, 9–24. New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crellin, Robert. 2012. The Greek Perfect Active System: 200 BC – AD 150. Cambridge: University of Cambridge dissertation.Google Scholar
. 2016. The syntax and semantics of the perfect active in literary Koine Greek (Publications of the Philological Society 113). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Devine, Andrew M. & Laurence D. Stephens. 2013. Semantics for Latin. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dowty, David R. 1991. Word meaning and Montague Grammar: The semantics of verbs and times in generative semantics and in Montague’s PTQ, reprinted with a new preface (Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 7). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Drinka, Bridget. 2009. The *-to- / -no- construction of Indo-European: Verbal adjective or past passive participle? In Vít Bubeník, John Hewson & Sarah Rose (eds.), Grammatical change in Indo-European languages (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 305), 141–158. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Edwards, H. J. 1917. The Gallic War (Loeb Classical Library 72). Harvard University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Embick, David. 2000. Features, syntax, and categories in the Latin perfect. Linguistic Inquiry 31:2. 185–230. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fairclough, H. Rushton. 1926. Satires. Epistles. The Art of Poetry (Loeb Classical Library 194). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. DOI logo; DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Falconer, William Armistead. 1923. De Senectute. De Amicitia. De Divinatione (Loeb Classical Library 154). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [URL]
Foster, Benjamin O. 1919. Livy. History of Rome. Books 1–2 (Loeb Classical Library 114). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [URL]
1924. Livy. History of Rome. Books 5–7 (Loeb Classical Library 172). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [URL]
1926. Livy. History of Rome. Books 8–10 (Loeb Classical Library 191). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [URL]
Freese, John H. 1930. Pro Quinctio. Pro Roscio Amerino. Pro Roscio Comoedo. On the Agrarian Law (Loeb Classical Library 240). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1979. On understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Grice, H. Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Peter Cole & Jerry L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and semantics: Speech acts, vol. 3 (Syntax and Semantics 3), 41–58. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greenough, James B., ed. 1900. Bucolics, Aeneid, and Georgics of Vergil. Boston: Ginn & Co. [URL]
Greenough, James B., G. L. Kittredge, A. A. Howard & Benjamin L. D’Ooge. eds. 1903. Allen & Greenough’s new Latin grammar for schools and colleges. Boston, MA: Ginn & Company.Google Scholar
Grestenberger, Laura. 2016. Reconstructing Proto-Indo-European deponents. Indo-European Linguistics 4. 98–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haines, Charles R. 1919. Correspondence, Volume I (Loeb Classical Library 112). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hale, William Gardner. 1886. The sequence of tenses in Latin: First paper. The American Journal of Philology 7:4. 446–465. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, Martin. 1970. The verbal systems of Latin and French. Transactions of the Philological Society 69. 62–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haverling, Gerd V. M. 2010. Actionality, tense and viewpoint. In Philip Baldi & Pierluigi Cuzzolin (eds.), New perspectives on historical Latin syntax. Volume 2: Constituent syntax: Adverbial phrases, adverbs, mood, tense (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 180.2), 277–523. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Heseltine, Michael & William H. D. Rouse. 1913. Petronius: Satyricon. Seneca: Apocolocyntosis rev. by Eric H. Warmington (Loeb Classical Library 15). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hildebrandt, Kristine A. 2013. Converb and aspect-marking polysemy in Nar. In Elena Mihas, Bernard Perley, Gabriel Rei-Doval & Kathleen Wheatley (eds.), Responses to language endangerment: In honor of Mickey Noonan. New directions in language documentation and language revitalization, 97–118. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, Johann B. & Anton Szantyr. 1972. Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik. 2nd edn. Munich: Beck.Google Scholar
Holmes, T. Rice (ed.). 1914. C. Iuli commentarii rerum in Gallia gestarum VII. [Julius Caesar’s VII Commentaries on the Gallic Wars]. Oxford: Clarendon. [URL]
(ed.). 1916. Caesar in Britain: C. Iuli Caesaris de bello gallico commentarii quartus (xx-xxxviii) et quintus. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Horrocks, Geoffrey & Melita Stavrou. 2007. Grammaticalized aspect and spatio-temporal culmination. Lingua 117:4. 605–644. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Horsfall, Nicholas. 2008. Virgil, Aeneid 2: A commentary (Mnemosyne Supplements 299). Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, Benjamin H. & James Mountford. 1962. The revised Latin primer. New edn. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Kenny, Anthony. 1963. Action, emotion and will. London: Routledge & Keagan Paul.Google Scholar
Kiessling, Adolf Gottlieb (ed.). 1872. Annaei Senecae oratorum et rhetorum sententiae divisiones colores. Leipzig: Teubner. [URL]
Kiparsky, Paul. 2002. Event structure and the perfect. In David I. Beaver, Luis D. Casillas Martínez, Brady Z. Clark & Stefan Kaufmann (eds.), The Construction of Meaning, 113–136. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Klein, Wolfgang. 1992. The present perfect puzzle. Language 68:3. 525–552. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1994. Time in language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Koontz-Garboden, Andrew. 2010. The lexical semantics of derived statives. Linguistics and Philosophy 33. 285–324. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 1989. Nominal Reference, temporal constitution and quantification in event semantics. In Renate Bartsch, Johan van Benthem & Peter van Emde Boas, Semantics and contextual expression (Groningen-Amsterdam Studies in Semantics 11), 75–115. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1992. Thematic relations as links between nominal reference and temporal constitution. In Ivan A. Sag & Anna Szabolcsi (eds.), Lexical Matters (CSLI Lecture Notes 24), 29–53. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications & Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Kümmel, Joachim Martin. 2013. Zur Verwendung des Perfektfuturs im Altlatein. Glotta 89. 130–145. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Landman, Fred & Susan Rothstein. 2012. The felicity of aspectual for-phrases – Part 1: Homogeneity. Linguistics and language compass 6. 85–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leo, Friedrich (ed.). 1895. Plauti comoediae. Berlin: Weidmann. [URL]
Mayhoff, Karl Friedrich Theodor (ed.). 1906. Naturalis historia. Leipzig: Teubner. [URL]
McDevitte, W. A. & W. S. Bohn (transs.). 1869. Caesar’s Gallic War. 1st edn. New York: Harper & Brothers. [URL]
Meillet, Antoine. 1933. Esquisse d’une histoire de la langue latine. 3rd revised and expanded edn. Paris: Hachette.Google Scholar
Meiser, Gerhard. 1993. Uritalische Modussyntax: zur Genese des Konjunktiv Imperfekt. In Helmut Rix (ed.), Oskisch-Umbrisch: Texte und Grammatik. Arbeitstagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft und der Società Italiana di Glottologia vom 25. bis 28. September 1991 in Freiburg, 167–195. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
. 1998. Historische Laut- und Formenlehre der lateinischen Sprache. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
. 2003. Veni vidi vici: Die Vorgeschichte des lateinischen Perfektsystems (Zetemata 113). Munich: C. H. Beck.Google Scholar
de Melo, Wolfgang David Cirilo. 2007. The early Latin verb system: Archaic forms in Plautus, Terence, and beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Penney, John. 2011. Archaic and Old Latin. In Clackson (ed.), 220–235.Google Scholar
Peterson, William. ed. 1917. M. Tulli Ciceronis orationes. Vol 3: Divinatio in Q. Caecilium. In C. Verrem. 2nd edn. Oxford: Clarendon. [URL]
Pinkster, Harm. 1983. Tempus, Aspekt and Aktionsart in Latin (Recent trends 1961–1981). In Wolfgang Haase (ed.), Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt II: Principat, vol. 29.1: Sprache und Literatur, 270–319. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2015. The Oxford Latin syntax 1: The simple clause. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Poirier, Michel. 1978. Le parfait de l’indicatif: un passé accompli ou passé accompli pur et simple? Revue des Études Latines 56. 369–379.Google Scholar
. 1980. Le parfait de l’indicatif latin : un passé accompli, ou un accompli pur et simple? In Serbat (ed.), 1980b, 87–96.Google Scholar
du Pontet, René. ed. 1901. C. Iuli Caesaris Commentariorum. Pars posterior qua continentur: Libri III De bello civili, cum libris incertorum auctorum De bello Alexandrino Africo Hispaniensi. Oxford: Clarendon. [URL]
Postgate, John P. 1913. Tibullus. Catullus. Tibullus. Pervigillium Veneris. (Loeb Classical Library 6). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Purser, Louis Claude. ed. 1903. M. Tulli Ciceronis epistulae. Vol. 2, Epistulae ad Atticum. Oxford: Clarendon. [URL]
Ramchand, Gillian Catriona. 1997. Aspect and predication: The semantics of argument structure. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, Malka & Beth Levin. 1998. Building verb meanings. In Miriam Butt & Wilhelm Geuder (eds.), The projection of arguments: Lexical and syntactic constraints (CSLI Lecture Notes 83), 97–134. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Riley, Henry Thomas. 1912. The Comedies of Plautus. London: G. Bell and Sons. [URL]
Rix, Helmut. 1992. Zur Entstehung des lateinischen Perfektparadigmas. In Oswald Panagl & Thomas Krisch (eds.), Latein und Indogermanisch. Akten des Kolloqiums der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Salzburg, 23. – 26. September 1986 (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 64), 221–242. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck.Google Scholar
Roberts, William Masfen. 1912–1924. The History of Rome. 6 Vols. London: J. M. Dent & E. P. Dutton. [URL]
Rogland, Max Frederick. 2003. Alleged non-past uses of qatal in Classical Hebrew (Studia Semitica Neerlandica 44). Assen: Koninklijke Van Gorcum. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rolfe, John C. 1935. Ammianus Marcellinus. History, volume I: Books 14–19 (Loeb Classical Library 300). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [URL]
Rothstein, Susan D. 2004. Structuring events: A study in the semantics of lexical aspect (Explorations in Semantics 2). Malden, MA: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008. Theoretical and crosslinguistic approaches to the semantics of aspect (Linguistik aktuell 110). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ryle, Gilbert. 1949. The concept of mind. London: Barnes & Noble.Google Scholar
Sage, Evan T. 1935. Livy. History of Rome. Books 31–34 (Loeb Classical Library 295). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [URL]
Serbat, Guy. 1980a. Le parfait de l’indicatif actif en latin. In Serbat (ed.), 1980b, 12–54.Google Scholar
, ed. 1980b. Le sens du parfait de l’indicatif en Latin: colloque de Morigny 2 déc. 78 (Civilisations 1). Paris: Université de Paris – Sorbonne.Google Scholar
Sihler, Andrew L. 1995. New comparative grammar of Greek and Latin. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Shackleton Bailey, David R. (ed. and trans.). 1999. Letters to Atticus. 4 vols. (Loeb Classical Library, 7, 8, 97, 491). Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szemerényi, Oswald. 1987. The origin of aspect in the Indo-European languages. Glotta 65.1–18.Google Scholar
Taylor, Barry. 1977. Tense and continuity. Linguistics and Philosophy 1:2. 199–220.Google Scholar
Vairel, Hélène. 1980. La valeur de l’opposition infectum/perfectum en latin: Examen et critique des diverses interprétations proposées. Valeur en langue et valeurs d’emploi des formes du perfectum. In Serbat (ed.), 1980b, 55–86.Google Scholar
Vendler, Zeno. 1957. Verbs and times. The Philosophical Review 66:2.143–160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Watts, Neville H. 1931. Pro Milone. In Pisonem. Pro Scauro. Pro Fonteio. Pro Rabirio Postumo. Pro Marcello. Pro Ligario. Pro rege Deiotaro (Loeb Classical Library 252). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Way, Arthur G. (trans). 1955. Alexandrian War. African War. Spanish War (Loeb Classical Library 402). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Willi, Andreas. 2009. To be or not to be: The Latin perfect in -v-. Historische Sprachforschung / Historical Linguistics 122. 228–247. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. The Oscan Perfect in -TT- . Transactions of the Philological Society 114:1. 75–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yonge, Charles D. (trans.). 1856. The Orations of Marcus Tullius Cicero. Vol. 2. London: Henry G. Bohn. [URL]