Dr.A.Kamatchi
Assistant Professor
CAS in Linguistics
Annamalai University
Courtesy:
The paper has been published in the International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics, Vol. 33, No.2, June, 2004 (pp.151- 162).
Introduction
As far as Tamil grammars are concerned, the concept of perfect is not indigenous; but it is said to have entered into the Tamil language by the influence of other languages. According to the western tradition, as pointed out by Comrie (1976:6), “the perfect has usually, but not always, been considered an aspect, although it is doubtful whether the definition can be interpreted to include the perfect as an aspect. However, the perfect is equally not just a tense, since it differs in meaning from the various tense forms. The perfect is rather different from aspects like progressive since it tells us nothing directly about the situation in itself, but preceding situation. Distinguishing the non-perfect from perfect, Comrie exemplifies the English sentences I have lost (perfect) my penknife and I lost (non-perfect) my penknife. “One possible difference between these two is that with the perfect, there is an implication that the penknife is still lost, whereas with non-perfect, there is no such implication” (1976:52).
Sweet (1903:98) clearly indicates that the perfect “expresses an occurrence which began in the past and is connected with present, either by actual continuance up to the present time, or in its results”. So, in terms of temporality, it can otherwise be interpreted that the present perfect serves to locate an event within a period of time that began in the past and extends up to the present moment, while the simple past specifies that an event occurred at a past time that is separated from the present time by some interval.
As far as Tamil is concerned, the perfect is purely aspect, but not tense because the perfect is represented by a separate form iru to denote the aspect, unlike in English where the form which represents the perfect has the inherent feature of tense system like has / have and had, the former of which refers not only to the aspect but also to the present whereas the latter one to the past tense with aspect. However, in Tamil, structure the perfect form that refers to the aspect is adhered to various tense markers to denote the time. For example, the form vantirukkiRaan consists ofvaa–nt–iru–kkiR–aan. There are five forms involved in the above-said finite verb. Of them the third form –iRu- alone cannot be used to denote the time. Because of this reason, the perfect is a form which is not used to the tense representation to which a separate forms –(k)kiR- , -nt- and -pp- are used to designate the present, the past and the future, respectively, in Tamil.
It can be precisely pointed out that Reichenbach’s (1947) famous and popular account of the difference between the simple past and the present perfect would perhaps lie in the distinction between speech time, event time, and reference time. As Dowty (1972) puts, Reichenbach’s theory, while applying to English situation, “was (roughly) that the present perfect has its reference time (RT) at the same time as speech time (ST), with event time (ET) earlier than these, while the simple past has the reference time at the same time as event time, with both earlier than speech, as in the familiar diagram below:
----------------
o----------------------------------o---------------------------- ET ST, RT With present perfect
------------------o-----------------------------------o--------------------------- RT, ET ST With simple past”
As we have already said, this diagramme applies only to the perfect form with tense marker as in –iru-kkiR- but not to the perfect alone, as far as Tamil is concerned. It can possibly be derived a semantic interpretation of aspectual notions, apart from the temporality, realized by the perfect form with present tense marker based on the contexts of their occurrence. Accordingly, there are six meanings unearthed from such a construction in Tamil. They are current relevance, experiential perfect, quotational perfect, informative, second hand report and non-visual evidential, of which the last three notions can be brought under the category of indirect speech Act.
Current Relevance
Current relevance can be defined as a past situation still continues up to the present moment of time, i.e. the moment of speech situation. Consider sentence given below:
1. katavu tiRantirukkiRatu
The door remains open
Sentence (1) describes that the ‘opening of the door’ took place in past with respect to the speech situation and the state of that event extends up to the speech time. Consider sentence (2), as given below:
2. avan varumpootu katavu tiRantatu
THE DOOR OPENED WHEN HE CAME
According to sentence (2), the action of the main clause took place in the past. However, the state of opening was not necessary to continue up to the moment of the speech situation. That is, sentence (2) specifies only the event whose time is past. Therefore, the simple past tense form is used here. Comparing sentences (1) with (2), there is a notion ofcurrent relevance in the former whereas such a notion cannot be expected from the latter.
In view of the fact that sentence (1) relates the past event and the state of the present situation, it cannot, in any case, possess the past time adverbs, as shown in (3):
3. * neeRRu katavu tiRantirukkiRatu
The door remained open yesterday
However, there would be a compatibility of past time adverb and the perfect referring to the current relevance (as opposed to the experience of perfect or informative one). Consider sentence (4), the action of which began in the past but the state of action continues to the time at which the utterance is made.
4. neeRRu malai peytirukkiRatu
The rain occurred yesterday
Sentence (4) would suggest that the speaker of the utterance was absent at the time of ‘raining’. But, at the time of speech, the state of action ‘raining’ still exists and therefore, he uses the perfect form iru in this sentence¹. In case he (speaker) had earlier seen the activity of ‘raining’, he is not able to use the perfect form, but the simple past, as shown in (5):
5. neeRRu malai peytatu
The rain occurred yesterday
However, the compatibility of the perfect form referring to current relevance and the time adverb referring to the speech time is very common in the language, as in (6) below.
6. ippootu katavu uTayntirukkiRatu
Now the door is under repair
The reason for compatibility is that both the present perfect form and the time adverb contain the speech time.
Sentence (6), given above, could be used only if the stativity of the ‘breaking of the door’ prevails at the time of the speech situation. Otherwise it cannot be used. That is, if it had been repaired earlier, i.e. before the speech time, then the sentence with the perfect plus present tense cannot be employed. It is important to be pointed out that in the perfect of result, a present state is referred to as being the result of some past situation. This is one of the clearest manifestations of the present relevance of a past situation. Thus, sentence (6) shows the persistence of the result of ‘breaking’. That is, the door still remains unrepaired.
It is to be noted here that the aspectual form –iru- added to the verbal participle, as in vantu, which consists of past tense marker –nt-, signifies an aspectual notion whereas the past tense marker in the participle conveys the past action. The time of aspectual notion is designated by the tense marker, which occurs after the aspectual form.
Experiential Perfect
The perfect of experience expresses what happened, one or more than once, within the speaker’s or writer’s experience” (Zandvoort 1957:62). From the point of view of Comrie, it “indicates that a given situation has held at least once during some time in the past leading up to the present” (1976:58). Consider the following example:
7. oru taTavai naan amrtam caappiTTirukkiReen
I have had ambrosia once
Sentence (7) claims that on at least one occasion (though possibly on more than once), the speaker (in this case) has had amrtam, of course. The activity of consumption of ambrosia by the subject-referent is extremely rare in ordinary life but only possible in a mythical context. That is why, the native speaker cannot, except in extremely unusual circumstances, utter a sentence like (8), which has water as an object NP. See below:
8. *Poona maatam oru taTavai avan taNNiir kuTiccirukkiRaan
? Last month he has drunk a cup of water once
The reason for the oddity is obvious. Water is one of the essential commodities in one’s day-to-day life (or for one’s living), and therefore, in such a type of sentences, when things like water function as an object NP, the sentence becomes peculiar in its use. However, the sentence would be possible in case the word taNNiir in Tamil is considered to mean liquor. The reason may be that the liquor, unlike water, is not essential for someone to exist in the world. In general, there is no separate form to distinguish experiential perfect from resultative perfect. Hence, sentences like (9), involve two distinguished meaning notions – the experiential perfect and the resultative.
9. avar neeppaalattukku pooyirukkiRaar
He has been/gone to Nepal
Sentence (9) can be interpreted as either he has gone to Nepal or he has been to Nepal.
The former interpretation shows that he is in Nepal now, or is on his way. But the latter implies that ‘he went to Nepal (at least in one occasion) but now is not there. On the other hand, when we add the temporal adverbs like individuating specifier, as shown in (10), they denote only the latter meaning:
10. oru taTavai avar neeppaalattukku pooyirukkiRaar
He has been to Nepal once
Instead, if the temporal specifier indicating the speech time is added to sentence (10), it indicates the former sense alone. With the perfect of experience, the requirement of current relevance is still important.
Quotational Perfect
Quotational perfect is defined as ‘describing the quotations by eminent ones in the society’ (Kamatchi 1988:58). Consider the example given below:
11. pulaal uNpaatu paavam enRu tiruvaLLuvar colliyirukkiRaar
Thiruvalluvar says that to eat meat is sin
This may also be considered to be as involving current relevance. Thus, though the quoted person is no more, his word, of course, is still in existence in the Tamil country, at least². Moreover, the quoted person may be an eminent one even in a family. See below:
12. pulaal uNpatu paavam enRu enkaL taattaa colliyirukkiRaar
My grand father told me that to eat meat is sin
Despite the fact that my grand father, as in (12), might not have been an eminent person in our society, as far as the speaker of (12) is concerned, he was/is an eminent one in his family, at least. Therefore, the perfect form is used here. In effect, it is not necessary condition for the quoted person to be dead at the time of the speech situation.
INDIRECT SPEECH ACT
Informative
In Tamil, the predominant use of the perfect form with present tense is to express a situation that was informed to the speaker earlier than the time at which the speech was taken place – that is, the form is used when a situation where the speaker has not directly seen the act of subject-referent. See the sentence below:
13. neeRRu avan viLayaaTiyirukkiRaan
He played yesterday (It was informed)
Generally, there is no involvement of current relevance or resultative notion in utterance (13). However, it has a perfect form. In fact, the matter was already informed to the speaker before he uttered this sentence. On the other hand, in general, the sentence with the simple past is used to report the situation, which the speaker saw directly, as shown in (14):
14. neeRRu avan viLayaaTinaan
HE PLAYED YESTERDAY
The semantic distinction between (13) and (14) is that the speaker of the former (but not of the latter) might not have seen the event indicated by the sentence, at any cost.
In Tamil, the sentence with the perfect form plus present tense is often used to express typically the reported matter. Nevertheless, it is possible only if it occurs with the third person as the subject of the sentence. See below:
15. mattiyaanam avaL kaamuvai paarttirukkiRaaL
She saw Kamu at noon (It was informed)
Sentence (15) reveals that the intention of the speaker is to convey the matter to the addressee, which was informed to him (speaker) by some other person. On the other hand, the utterance with the perfect form is not found in the language when the subject is in the first person pronoun. See the sentence below:
16. * mattiyaanam naan kaamuvai paarttirukkiReen
I saw Kamu at noon (It was informed)
The reason for unacceptability is obvious. What the person referred to by the third person pronoun has done might have been informed to the speaker when it (the speaker) functions as the subject. But, such a thing has not happened in the case of the first person pronoun that functions as subject. Since he himself is the speaker of the sentence, there is no need for information from others regarding his past activities except in a few contexts. For instance, in a context where X murmured when he was sleeping, X was informed about his murmuring after he woke up. Then, X may utter sentences like (17), which involves the first person pronoun as the subject, as below:
17. naan raatri muNaŋkiyirukkiReen
I murmured last night (It was informed)
Unless the state of the past event extends up to the time of the speech situation³, then the sentence with participle which includes another perfect form /vantiruntu/ is used in Tamil, as shown in (18):
18. neeRRu avan maturaykku vantiruntirukkiRaan
I was informed that he came to Madurai yesterday
The sentence, of course, is an informative one; that is, some one informed the speaker about his (subject) activity earlier to the speech time. If the speaker had seen ‘his coming’, then he could use either the simple past or the past perfect form.
Second Hand Report
Whenever the sentence has the simple past form, the action determined by it would generally be a first hand report. That is, the speaker would directly have perceived what he said. Take, for example, the sentence below:
19. eTTu maNikku avan iRantaan
HE DIED AT 8 O’CLOCK
Sentence (19) reveals the fact that the speaker was with the ‘subject-referent’ at the time of his death or at least, the speaker was present in the place where the action was taken place. On the other hand, if the sentence would involve the perfect form, the action denoted by it could be a second hand report. That is, someone else might have informed about the action done by the subject-referent before the utterance was made. There are obvious examples to establish the fact that the perfect form in Tamil is used to indicate the matter that was reported to the speaker of the sentence before the speech time:
20. eTTu maNikku kulantay priRantirukkiRatu
THE CHILD WAS BORN AT EIGHT O’CLOCK
As the person (speaker) who was absent at the time of the child’s birth, she uses the perfect form. By using it, the speaker implicitly indicates that the matter of ‘child’s birth’ was informed to her. Nevertheless, if she had been present in the place where the child was born, then she would have used only the simple past form, instead of the perfect one.
Non-Visual Evidential
Whenever the action specified by the sentence is considered to be non-visual evidential to the speaker of the sentence, the perfect form together with present tense would be used in Tamil:
21. atai neeRRu Rajan tiruTiyirukkiRaan
RAJAN HAS STOLEN IT YESTERDAY
The implication of the sentence above is that the speaker is not an eyewitness to prove the fact that ‘he stole it’. However, someone else had informed the matter to him, and hence he uses the perfect form here. On the other hand, if the activity is a visual-evidential, then the language attests the simple past tense form here.
22. neeRRu atai Rajan tiruTinaan
RAJAN STOLE IT YESTERDAY
In a court or a police station where the hearing over the stolen things is taking place, an eyewitness can say (22), but not (21) when he is being enquired regarding the articles, which was earlier stolen by the person referred to by ‘Rajan’.
Furthermore, sentence (21) suggests that the allegation made on Rajan (subject) may be falsified as far as the speaker is concerned, since someone else should have reported to the speaker of (21) about Rajan’s action. However, in (22), there is no possibility for such a falsification since the speaker himself is an eyewitness for what the subject-referent did.
Pluperfect (Past Perfect)
In a non-simple sentence, there would be two events realized by it. The perfect form associated with the past tense marker in Tamil would indicate one of the two events involved in the utterance. Semantically, that event must be antecedent to the other. In other words, in a sentence that involves two events, one of the two events is the antecedent, which is used by the perfect form together with past tense form. Though both events are completed before the speech time, one is antecedent to the other. Lyons (1977: 689), specifically, states that the pluperfect “might be classified as a past-in-the-past tense, whose function of it is to express the anteriority of one situation in the past relative to another situation in the past. Anteriority is not of course a deictic notion; so that ‘earlier-in-the-past’ might be more appropriate than ‘past-in-the-past”. Thus, for example, the time of situation, ‘he had come’ is the anteriority of another situation, I came here’. Of course, both the events took place in the past with respect to the speech time. Consider sentence (23), as given below:
23. enakku munnaaTi avan iŋku vantiruntaan
HE HAD COME HERE BEFORE I
In sentence (23), there are, at least, two clauses in the underlying structure, as shown in (24) below:
24. naan varuvataRku munnaaTi avan iŋku vantiruntaan
He had come here before I came
Pluperfect Vs Simple Past
In terms of semantic analysis, the distinction between the pluperfect and the simple past is as follow:
25. neeRRu avan iŋku vantiruntaan (with perfect + past)
HE CAME HERE YESTERDAY
26. neeRRu avan iŋku vantaan ( with simple past)
He came here yesterday
Sentence (25), which has the perfect form with past tense, implies that the subject-referent came here and went back from this place yesterday itself whereas sentence (26), which has the simple past form, means that he (subject) came here, and might or might not be here at the time of the speech situation. When a temporal clause that comprises the conjunctive pootu is involved in a sentence, the past perfect indicates one action anterior to another whereas the simple past denotes that both actions are simultaneous, in general. Consider the following sentences:
27. naan aŋku pookumpootu avan vantiruntaan
He had come before I went there
28. naan aŋku pookumpootu avan vantaan
He came there when I went
In (27), the event of the main clause had taken place before that of the temporal clause. But in (28), both the actions, more or less, took place simultaneously. Furthermore, when the state of event is durative in the past, the sentence involving the perfect form with past tense, rather than simple past, is employed in the language, as illustrated below:
29. neeRRu kaTai tiRantiruntatu
The shop was open yesterday
Pluperfect Vs Present Perfect
A very clear-cut distinction between the pluperfect and the present perfect is their respective tenses. In a subjectless sentence, the verb takes the latter if its time adverb includes the speech time whereas it takes the former if its time adverb does not include the speech time. Sentence (29), given above, and sentence (30), given below, establish the distinction mentioned earlier:
30. inRu kaTai tiRantirukkiRatu
Today the shop has opened
Another distinction made by Palmer (1974:41) is that “although the past perfect can be ‘past-past’, the present perfect is never ‘present-past’’. Similarly, McCawley indicates that ‘the present perfect is not merely the present of a past in the same sense that the past perfect can be the past of a past”(1976:263).
Perfect Form With Future Tense
Whenever the perfect form with future tense is involved in a sentence, it expresses the factual or non-factual activity. Moreover, the event might have taken place in the past or may take place in the future on the basis of time adverb involved in the sentence. If there is no temporal adverb or clause in the utterance, the time of the action is not anchored to the speech time: that is, it is not deictic. In this construction, only the time specifiers (if deictic) involved in the sentence designates the deictic notion. Consider sentence (31) below:
