Languages with imperfect aspect use morphosyntactic strategies to distinguish habitual, iterative, and progressive meanings.
the verdict
CONTESTED
contested - the weight sits with the supporting side
refutedsupported
the weight of evidence
2 sources for · 0 against
AS REPORTEDno primary record reached; this is what the reporting says
The retrieved sources mention questions and research regarding imperfective suffixes and distinctions in aspect, but do not provide definitive evidence to support the claim.
# How do languages with imperfect aspect typically convey distinctions between habitual, iterative, and progressive aspects?
Tags: syntax, morphology, semantics, aspect
- Score: 8
- Views: 646
- Answers: 1
- Answered: yes
- Asked by: James Grossmann (8898 rep)
- Asked: 2013-03-01
- Edited: 2013-03-02
- Site: linguistics
## Question
How does languages with imperfect aspects typically convey distinctions between habitual, iterative, and progressive aspects?
In English, which does not mark its verbs for imperfect aspect, we have progressing "-ing," we have adverbial to convey habitual aspect ("always," "usually," "regulary") and even an auxiliary, "keep," that can convey iterative aspect.
In languages that do have imperfect aspect but no verb inflections or auxiliaries that mark distinct habitual, progressive, or iterative aspects, how are the concepts that answer to the latter three names conveyed? For example, is the use of adverbials to make these distinctions the most common strategy?
## Answers
### Answer by Manjusri (score: 3 [ACCEPTED])
Russian has two types of verbs: perfect VS imperfect. Perfect verbs are normally distiguished by prefixes added to verb stems. For
On imperfective suffixes in Russian | Russian Linguistics | Springer Nature Link
# On imperfective suffixes in Russian
- Open access
- Published: 25 July 2024
- Volume 48, article number 14 (2024)
- Cite this article
You have full access to this open access article
Russian Linguistics Aims and scope Submit manuscript
## Abstract
This article is concerned with imperfective suffixes in Russian. It argues that there are at least three imperfective suffixes, the progressive morpheme, the iterative marker and the habitual suffix. It is shown that they differ in morphosyntactic and semantic properties. As to their structural properties, the progressive suffix is the lowest marker; the iterative morpheme attaches in a higher position; and the habitual morpheme is structurally the highest element. Thus, the article argues against a unitary approach to the iterative suffix and the habitual morpheme. Semantically, the iterative suffix has a pluractional meaning, whereas the habitual suffix is a vague generic quantifier. As to their phonological properties, the three markers are homophonous; they are spelled out as an -yva- allomorph. In this respect, the suffixes differ from the morph
Everything we examined (2)
This check searched the claim as stated. It did not run a separate search for evidence against it.