Talk:Preterite

Ladino

I may be missing something here, but I fail to see why Ladino, a language with fewer than 200,000 native speakers and of little historical significance, bears mentioning in this article. Romanian and Catalan are both Romance languages with larger native-speaking populations and, at least in the case of Romanian, historical importance. And yet, both are excluded. I'm deleting it from the article, unless someone can present good reason why it should remain. --The Berzerk Dragon (talk) 12:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

-I had wished to protest the test offered by our Dragon brother as preposterous. Upon further consideration, I have little evidence to show that a test merits objection here in Wikipedia, solely by the cause of its intrinsic absurdity. A decision to exclude the Romanian language from the consideration of the preterite case is certainly wrong; regarding Castilian, I would also agree. When confronted in conscience with the nature of Wikipedia and its fondness for politically-correct arbitrariness, I have no reply. Yes! Go ahead and delete whatever you wish! It is the Way!

-However, should reason be applied in this matter, I would argue from the perspective of the nominalist thinkers, that the Italic languages should be seen as a diachronic, timeless flow of expression, gathering into vast lakes at times, and in others, forming little trickling streams as distributaries. It seems a waste of time to assign some sort of value to the alleged 'branches' based upon their merit; even more so, based upon an assumption of merit deriving from the number of "speakers," whatever that word might mean.

-Most small twigs of the Latin children do become extinct, by pressure from a more robust sibling. Ladino disappears under the Spanish effluvium, and its former bed is washed away; many of the Iberian rivulets of the northern Atlantic coast vanish in the southward flood of the Reconquísta. The simple test for the mere number of "native speakers" of one branch of the Latinate languages is intrinsically erroneous; for the numbers of speakers presupposes a certain test for whether a language belongs under the appellation "Spanish." In the Western Hemisphere, the various "Spanishes" are in many ways closer to the more ancient languages - such as Ladino - than to the modern Iberian Spanish. the concept of "New World Spanish" is invoked as a patch to fix the glaring holes exposed by deconstruction of the greater concept, "Spanish."

-I note that I run up against a more serious problem when I express this concern here. It seems that nowadays, in nearly all examples of the handling of conflict in the manipulation of concepts, people positing any disagreement here give rise to the principle of social différance. We lived under an unquestioned axiom that there is a juridical system where all claimants to a dispute have equal merit based on their displeasure. There is no mandate placed upon the disputants to progress towards a dialectical solution; rather, the validity of the argument of each is pre-validated by the solipsistic certainty of the disputant's own logic. Thus, a judge must be created to cobble together a 'certainty' from the dispute, and construct a new, synthetic "common ground" upon which the disputants can "agree."

-Loudness alone, which reflects the disputant's offense and hurt, is the measure of validity of every argument. If the participant is confused, or in the old language, "lies" about certain elements of the dispute, well then, the volume shows the degree of injury of the claimant. Another axiom is that the more profoundly hurt a participant feels, the more likely that participant is to "lie." It is a quaint notion that honesty under adversity is a worthy goal; somehow, that concept must be found reprehensible and tarred with disfavor, being somehow old, European, white, or male, capitalist or some awful property offensive the morals of a free-speaking society. It merits a liberal application of a cleansing tar to rid us of that troublesome concept, á la Harry's lament.

-In practical terms, modern adjudication entails the elimination of any field upon which the disputants war. It defines "common wisdom" or "political correctness" under which the battle cannot be posited. If such peace is purchased by the use of calumny to demerit one or the other combatant, so much the better. "Only a racist would say..." is now a juridical method for discarding argument. It is no longer an appeal to reason, nor a search for further thought, but a revanche against unpleasant disagreement; deconstructionism jammed up backwards deliberately, to make for happiness over disagreement.

-If there were some way to bring that concept into a slogan, it might become the eBanner for Wikipedia. In contrast, if there were a threatening and feared perspective unto discussion in this Web'O'Facts that Wikipedia has become, it would be described as diagreement - the resolution of conflict by the means of resolution of the underlying concepts. "Dia-greement" is admittedly a portmanteau word in English. The ponderous German Durchmeinungsverschiedenheit does not flow trippingly on the tongue, but does state the concept cleanly.

-"Diagreement" is a rather empty concept in the world of logic and dialectics. It merely posits the process of logical thought. It only has merit beyond jargon if there are instances where rational persons cannot use reason.

-So, to loop far back in this discussion, yes, go ahead and delete Ladino for whatever reason soothes you; I shall not dispute it whatsoever. I look upon my writing here as a solipsistic exercise, anyhow, as it is likely to be deleted - even an imbecile can tell that it is politically incorrect and doubleplus ungood. (I add the term 'imbecile' solely to facilitate the process, for that is a politically-incorrect word. Those dispossessed of reason need look no further than such an unwanted glyph.) We lust for rules, and prefer them when they are arbitrary and irrational; they are thus incontrovertible, and we are comforted thereby.

-Were I to wax indignant about the matter of the Deletion of Ladino, and bring a Dispute before the Powers here, the Judges, I might Win. Umbrage is the opiate of the servile. I could be thereby swelled by self-flattery; I understand the Rules of the Insane and can exercise them energetically. Perhaps others might fear me, knowing the Voice of the Rules. I can defeat by means of magic - hurrah for me!

-Any writing -in Wikipedia or sadly, elsewhere - that seems loose by the standards of the High School Essay (or at least the good ones rightly purchased online) - writing tenuous, flighty, or touching upon concepts that are undeveloped, confusing or demanding of effort to understand - can be best described as "nutty" and "trollish." Incomprehensibility is in the mind of the reader; and one merely needs to seize upon that solitary concept, notwithstanding, to quench a flow of thought. Incomprehensible thoughts might well hide the nugget of seditious concepts - must we mine through EVERYTHING to assure its political correctness? How tedious, NO!

-Let us then be without controversy here, and embrace happiness. Reason, so often, controverts and disturbs Happiness and Will. Thought here in Wikipedia might just as well be termed "Triumph des Glücks;" we need only await the next Leni Riefenstahl to assure us that what we wish, we know is righteous. We simply need an exciting portrayal of our self-assured wisdom. All we need, then, is a Leader; but we are now ready to be led. We lust for Rules; once we are Ruled, we shall be less restive.

-Selah.

(In post-script: Modern habits state that an extensive and critical oration provoked in response to a comment is, comment notwithstanding, an offensive provocation and unmerited retaliation against the person offering the comment. I see nothing bothersome about what brother Dragon has offered; I see MUCH troublesome about the field of thought upon which such things are considered. Again, I welcome the deletion of my comments for their violation of the niceness principle, and the central tendency rule. My assurance here is genuinely to brother Dragon, not to the audience.) Steve (talk) 14:11, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

German

There's a lot of German on this page, I'm not so sure it belongs here. Maybe it would work better if it were suplemented with Spanish and French information also? I think then maybe we would exceed the scope of the article. It might be better if we leave the German/foreign language lesson to Wikibooks. I didn't really want to delete information or change anything without some input from other users. Any comments appreciated. --NitrogenX (Michael Hines) 04:38, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't see the Spanish there. So maybe some French would be acceptable if anyone knows a bit? --NitrogenX (Michael Hines) 04:49, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

The preterite is a Germanic grammatical phenomenon. The Latin Imperfect or the French passé simple or its equivalents in other romanic languages are not the same as the preterite. The preterite simply does not exist in these languages. The preterite is the default form for telling events in the past (for example in a novel) in English or German. In French the passé simple is used instead, and in Italian it is the passato remoto, both descendants of the Latin perfect. It is a fundamental difference between English/German and many other indoeuropean languages, and it is therefore not possible to give examples in non-germanic languages. --GFlohr (talk) 22:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

That's... not at all true. That Romance languages don't have a separate tense devoted to the preterite does not mean that they have no tense which can also act as preterite. You mention yourself the Latin perfect, which even in Classical Rome was understood and frequently used in such a way which we would now call preterite, or simple past. To claim that there is some concept in some language which is inexpressible in other languages is just plain stupid and elitist. --216.145.71.230 (talk) 02:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

forming the preterite in English

How do you form the preterite in English? Do you just add -ed on the end of the infinite for regular verbs? -- Creidieki 15:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, though if the infinitive already ends in -e, you don't add another one. Ruakh 21:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

So where's the section in the article explaining how the preterite tense works in English? (See pluperfect tense for an example.) After reading this article, I still have no idea what the preterite is or how to use it, which is the whole reason I looked it up. -- CWesling 02:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, I think the lead text is pretty clear in explaining that English's preterite is just its simple past tense: came, went, saw, etc. —Ruakh_TALK 05:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah. I thought "simple past" was a technical term meaning something different from just "past" tense. I'll see if I can clarify that a little. -- CWesling 01:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see how that could be confusing. Indeed, "past tense" is probably the most common term for English's preterite. —Ruakh_TALK 03:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you clarify then, is the "preterite tense" exactly the same as the "past perfect" aka "pluperfect" tenses? Thanks, Richard

No, not at all. —Ruakh_TALK 18:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

English, like many other languages, has several past tenses: the imperfect, or past continuous I was walking, the preterite I walked, the perfect (sometimes called present perfect) I have walked and the pluperfect, or past perfect I had walked. The regular form of the past participle is identical to the preterite, but they are different tenses: consider, in the same order of tenses, an irregular verb such as "to eat": I was eating, I ate, I have eaten, I had eaten. Kevin McE 23:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You've mostly got the right idea, but you're really mixing terminologies. English has only one past tense, and it's called, straightforwardly enough, the "past tense". Additionally, English has four aspects — neutral (to do), perfect (to have done), continuous (to be doing), and perfect continuous (to have been doing). Verbs in the past tense, regardless of aspect, always include a preterite form: either the preterite of the main verb (did), or the preterite of an auxiliary verb (e.g. had done, was/were doing, had been doing).

(The term "preterite" does describe tenses in some other languages, because in some languages there are multiple past tenses, of which exactly one uses the preterite form, so it's natural to refer to that tense as the "preterite"; but that's not the case in English, and in discussing English we draw a fairly strict distinction between the preterite form and the past tense.)

—Ruakh_TALK 05:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Such as

"It is similar to the aorist in languages such as Greek." If this is intended to say that Greek is a language, it ought to have a comma: "It is similar to the aorist in languages, such as Greek." But of course, that's absurd. It should read: "It is similar to the aorist in languages like Greek." However, I doubt the preterite actually is like the aorist, which I've heard is difficult to translate into English. I shall suspend judgment until I've learned a bit more about both.  :-) Unfree (talk) 01:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, the Greek aorist denotes a past action which is finished as opposed to the imperfect, which informs that an action lasted in the past.Kameal (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The Aorist in greek is not like the preterite. I am removing this reference because it is unfactual. If anyone can bring up a scholarly source that states that the aorist is like the preterite, they can find the source for the removed sentence here : It is similar to the [[aorist]] in languages such as [[Greek language|Greek]].

I myself have found a scholarly paper that stated Is the aorist subjunctive a past tense? "No," answers Apollonius Dyscolus, in the first syntax produced in the Western world, " for the time relation belonging to the indicative disappears as soon as we change the indicative to another mood." It can be found here. http://www.archive.org/stream/greekaorist00belluoft/greekaorist00belluoft_djvu.txt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.212.106.138 (talk) 20:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Latin is being treated here as a Romance language

actually being an Italic language. Kameal (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Italian comes from latin, so it is not an Italic language. All romance languages (Italian, Romanian, French, Spanish and Portuguese) come from latin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.78.106 (talk) 00:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Shift to Preterite from Present Perfect in Western Hemisphere (Spanish / English)

As a speaker of Spanish and English, and having visited most of the locales mentioned, I really do not perceive the changes mentioned in the last paragraph. As I read the paragraph, it somehow implies that it is more common in Ireland to say "I ate the egg" than "I have eaten the egg," even if the speaker just finished breakfast. Similarly, in American Spanish, one would supposedly be more likely to say "Comí el huevo" after breakfast. I just don't find either to be the case. The present perfect is still more natural, even for Americans or Irish. And I do not think the meaning is any different on either side of the ocean in either language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.100.224 (talk) 05:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose this be merged with Past historical. Past historical is a stub, while preterite is more fully developed. More importantly, the two terms mean the same thing - the intro to preterite states "The preterite (also [...] past historic)". I see no distinction between the two, but I only understand the preterite in one language other than English, so it's possible I'm wrong. Bsimmons666 (talk) 03:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Commented out German section

Hello authors. I have commented this section out:

In certain regions, a few specific verbs are used in the preterite, for instance the modal verbs, and the verbs haben (have) and sein (be).

• Es gab einmal ein kleines Mädchen, das Rotkäppchen hieß. (There was once a small girl who was called Little Red Riding Hood.)

I'm far from being fluent in German language, but as far as I know, "es gab" is simply the past (praterite) for of "es gibt". I cannot see what is specific about it -- if there's no perfect version of it (being the equivalent of "there has been"), then please elaborate on it.

Right now it's simply not clear enough what the author meant.

LMB (talk) 12:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

These verbs are used in the preterite tense even in everyday speech, while other verbs are not. E.g., it would be very rare to hear the phrase "ich ging" (I went), with the form "ich bin gegangen" far more common in spoken German, while phrases with the verbs mentioned such as "ich hatte" or "es gab" are far more common than their perfect forms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.167.236.161 (talk) 22:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the section you have commented out. It's completely nonsensical – the example sentence is Standard German, not something pertaining to "certain regions". It contains neither "haben", "sein", nor a modal verb. It is a perfectly ordinary example of the Präteritum. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

What the author meant (and I inadvertently put in something of the same kind) was this: While the imperfect (it's the name we learnt in school) somewhat fades out of use (though I wouldn't have been sure about this in Middle German regions), it is obviously kept alive in some cases without even making the intention to fade. This is (unfortunately for learners?) the case with strong verbs (the name speaks for itself), that is, irregular verbs (ich war in any cases, ich hatte in Standard German, though the Bavarian dialect always uses perfect) except those which, while irregular, still form the regular ending (es brannte etc.; ich konnte being the exception) - are they felt still too weak? -, plus one regular modal verb (ich wollte). In addition, the imperfect seems to be tending really to become an imperfect, not sure whether only in Upper German regions or altogether. "Ich war gerade mit dem Antrag beschäftigt, als die Pause gewesen ist." (I was being occupied with the petition, when there was the break.") Thus, even here in Bavaria I'd not be so surprised when somebody in everyday conversation said: "Wir buken gerade noch den Kuchen, als der erste Gast eingetroffen ist", we were still baking the cake when the first guest arrived, although it would be a "Standardgermanism" certainly, and in this case even with a word that the Duden lists as archaic (buken). However I would certainly be surprised if somebody used the Duden's alternative backten (which to my ears never has become German). And to begin a fairytale with Es gab einmal is style-breaking, even if the Brothers Grimm may have done so themselves. It must, of course, be Es war einmal.--77.4.41.227 (talk) 14:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

And one other regular modal verb (ich sollte). --93.133.195.55 (talk) 23:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

about the German "preterite"

Hi. I added a "disputed-section" tag to the section on German. I did this because I wonder about the correctness of the assertion that "North German colloquial" has a distinction between preterite and perfect that is similar to English. There are no citations in this section and this is not at all what my German grammars say. My grammars explicitly assert that the German perfect is not the equivalent of the English perfect, but rather that the preterite is used only for connected past narratives and the perfect for other situations. I understand that Low German colloquial speech has an English-like perfect vs. preterite distinction, and that "High German colloquial" (i.e. the colloquial speech where High German was originally native) doesn't have this distinction, but it's far from obvious that northerners when speaking Standard ("High") German use the perfect like English. I really need to see citations. Benwing (talk) 07:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

How advanced are you grammars? Do they contain such detailed information on dialects? If these are general grammars you are referring to then you should understand that they are general and not going to provide such detail. The absence of that detail does not invalidate what has been noted here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.74.101.73 (talk) 20:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

All my German language teachers have also mentioned that the Preteritum is used in spoken German a lot more in the north. However an authoritative reference would not be out of place here. La-pays (talk) 12:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I have rewritten the section according to the Duden Grammar, which matches my intuition. I was going to include the following statement,

Despite the similartity, the Perfekt does not directly correspond to the English persent perfect. While it is incorrect to say **It has rained yesterday, the formal German equivalent Es hat gestern geregnet is perfectly grammatical.

but I'm not sure whether this is true for Northern German (it certainly is for Upper German) and I can't source it. Could you remove the Disputed tag if you are satisfied with my changes? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Dubious

I have tagged as "dubious" the following assertion:

Coincidentally, British Mainland English present perfect forms are sometimes replaced with simple pasts by Irish and North American English speakers, an exactly parallel development.

It is not possible, in North American English, to replace I have been to Russia with I went to Russia, which is the suggestion that seems to be implicit here.

I think what's going on is that, in UK English, the present perfect is obligatory in combination with words that indicate recentness, such as just or already. For example, in US English it is possible to say I just ate, whereas in the UK it would have to be I've just eaten. But in US English, it is possible to use I just ate distinctively from I've just eaten (depending on whether the speaker is relating the action taken as a whole, versus a present state of presumable fullness). The extent to which this is actually done, I won't attempt to say, but the situation is more complicated than a simple replacement of the present perfect by the simple past. --Trovatore (talk) 01:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

What they mean is that many people say "I have went to Russia". Still a perfect, but the past participial form of the verb has been replaced with the past. A huge percentage of the population have only two basic verb forms rather than three. — kwami (talk) 03:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

“I have went to Russia” (while substandard) is not the preterit. The claim here is that “present perfect forms” are replaced with “simple pasts” (not participles with simple past forms, but present perfect forms). The present perfect and the preterit are not interchangeable and the present perfect isn't going anywhere in AmE. As for simple past forms uniformly supplanting past participles (a completely different and unrelated issue), citation needed. While I know plenty of speakers that do supplant past participles with the simple past form, it's only with some verbs. For some verbs, the opposite is more common: “I have went” is no more common in Appalachia than “I seen” but while some dialects do that, it's not characteristic of AmE overall. mcornelius (talk) 23:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

In the US or in Ireland? I have went to Russia is definitely considered substandard in the US. In any case it doesn't fit the text, which talks about the present perfect being replaced by the simple past, not by some third construction. --Trovatore (talk) 03:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

In the US. You're right, it doesn't fit the context. But being considered substandard is irrelevant: it's reality. (Presumably the Canary Isl. thing is also considered substandard.) — kwami (talk) 05:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

My vague impression, though, is that the present perfect really is disappearing from Mexican Spanish. I could be wrong, but I don't see it much when I look at their newspapers. In American English, on the other hand, it is in no danger whatsoever; the line of demarcation is just in a different place from the one in British English. --Trovatore (talk) 10:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Idiotic

This article is useless and defeating for any English speaker trying to find out what a preterite is. I am restraining myself from using vulgar language. This is truly an abuse of power by some WP administrator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dynasteria (talk • contribs) 23:54, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

German section

There are some incorrect claims in the section on the German preterite because of a confusion of different phenomena as well as different varieties/registers.

The first paragraph is mostly fine, although it is not stated what is meant by "originally". However, the second paragraph mixes different things. The claim that "in modern German, however, these tenses no longer reflect any distinction in aspect" is certainly not correct when speaking about (especially formal or literary) written modern German. In fact, the distinction between Präteritum and Perfekt is still more or less one between how the event is related to the present. Although the distinction is not exactly the same as in English, possibly less clear (such that there are more cases where both forms are acceptable), and more dependent on register/style, these tenses are not freely interchangeable. What is probably meant is that there is no distinction between progressive and non-progressive aspect, but such a distinction never existed for written German. The lack of a present progressive tense is not relevant here either. (Actually, I have the intuition that in the spoken language (!) at least some speakers use Präteritum and Perfekt to distinguish what would be past progressive and simple past in English, especially with some frequent verbs, but I cannot give a valid source.) As for the statement that the preterite is mostly a narrative tense, this is correct (and in fact contradicts the claim that there is no distinction in aspect anymore), although the preterite is also used to describe states of longer duration that are not part of a connected action (such as in "Vor 500 Millionen Jahren enthielt die Erdatmosphäre keinen Sauerstoff" ("500 million years ago, the earth's atmosphere did not contain any oxygen").

The section on Upper German is correct and precise, but it cannot be introduced by "for example" since it does not illustrate what was said before about: What is said about Upper German does not hold for modern German in general, since it only refers to the spoken language and informal writing of a particular region. Furthermore, in the Upper German dialects the Perfekt is used as a general past tense for several hundred years now, thus including varieties that are probably not meant by "modern German".

Furthermore, the reference [5] is in the wrong place, since it apparently describes the use of the tenses in Upper German.

Thus, I'd suggest to rewrite the second paragraph into something like "In modern German, the use of Präteritum and Perfekt does not exactly correspond to that between the English preterite and perfect tense, and depends on the variety and the register. The Präteritum typically has the meaning of a narrative tense, i.e. a tense used primarily for describing connected past actions (e.g. as part of a story), and is used most often in formal writing and in literature, while the Perfekt is more common in spoken language as well as informal writing.", and to remove "for example" from the beginning of the third paragraph. --2001:16B8:2B64:D300:B1F8:E3A5:81C0:BC01 (talk) 12:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)