- Email: [email protected]
Semantic analysis of the tenses in Hungarian
ANALYSIS OF THE TENSES IN HUNGARIAN
The purpose of this paper is to analyze and describe the meaning of the tenses in the conjugational pattern of Hungarian. In two respects structural analysis in semantics goes beyond. a mere atomistic inventory of the usages, which only outlines the semantic extension of the grammatical category in question. It requires (a) that the general value of the category be established by setting up the semantic feature which defines the category, and (b) that the place of the category in the relational network of the bqammar be determined by accounting for the pertinent semantic oppositions l). In Standard Hungarian, there are two tenses in common use: Present and Perfect 2j. They are distinguished in two *moods: in the Indicative and in the Conditional. In the Imperative there is only one class of verb forms; their “fitting” into the tense system will be examined below. The discussion will be presented in the following order. We will begin with the analysis of the use of the tenses (1) in single-clause sentences containing the Indicative, and then continue (2) with closely knit subordinate clauses with bogy ‘that’, followed (3) by looser subordinate (clauses; thereafter we will treat (4) the Conditional, and conclude the analysis (5) with the Imperative a). * 1) These principles were, to my knowledge, first consistently
applied to grammar by G. J. Ramstedt in his Uber die Cor,jugation des Khalkha-Nongoiikmoires de le Sociktk Finno-Ozcgrienne, Vol. XIX, Helsinki, 1903. They schen, have been fuliy developed and applied to other fields of linguistic analysis in structural linguistics, especially by R. Jakobson and by W. de Groot. 2) In addition to these two commonly used tenses there are a number of simple, compound, and periphrastic tenses in Hungarian. They all are either archaic, obsolete, or dialectal, with the exception of the periphrastic Future with fog. This construction, however, implies a superimposed differentiation within the Present and does not affect our problem. z) For more extensive data, see J. Lotz, Das ungavische S$rac?q.&em, Stockholm, 1939, pp. 148-158, and the recently published grammar by the Hungarian
256
(1) In the Indicative the tense suffix of the Present is I-01 or I-s/ 4) (written -sz), of the Perfect (-T} 5). The Present occurs in the following usages: a) Timeless reference, generally valid, or. habitually repeated events (often in laws of nature, proverbs, etc..) 6) ; e.g., A viz 100” - n&l fmr. W’ater boils at 100”. V&r nem v&k vizze. Bltood doesn’t become water. inden nap be@z. He comes in every day. b) Simultaneous Itt Gltik es &ok.
reference
to the time of the speech event ; e.g., I am sitting here and writing.
c) Reference to future or expected events, often with the adverb majd ‘later’ or with a temporal adverbial expression which makes the future reference clear ; e.g., He arrives the day after toHoln.aputBn &k&k morrow. d) Reference to the past in vivid retelling (praesens historicurn). This is much more common in Hungarian than in English ; e.g., Yesterday I was walking (M I Tegnap megyek az utcan. walk) on the street. The Perfect is used with reference to past events viewed from the Academy of Sciences, A mai magyav nyelv rendszeve - Leiro’ nyelvtan - I. kiitet, S&tan (System of the Modern Hungarian Language Bevezetis, Ha+aq - Phonetics, Morphology), Descriptive grammar - Volume I, Introduction Budapest, 1961, especially pp. 491-497. In the Hungarian examples we use the o:rthographic forms, and not a transcription. Since there is a complete isomorphism. between speech and script for our problem, the results are not affected. Tense forms are italicized. 4) Some grammars treat the I-s/ as part of the stem alternant, and not as a separate morpheme. Either approach gives the same result for the semantic side of the tenses. 5) (-T} has the followink; five alternants: l-t/, /-tt/, /-ott, -ett, -ottI; the selection is determined by the root morpheme for the vowel (vowel harmony) and by the preceding morpheme for the rest. 6) The pure nominal predicates function as Indicative Present Third persons (either singular or plural). E.g., A viz meleg. A macskak allatok.
The water is warm. Cats are animals.
point of view of the speech
event; such an event may be either a single happening or events repeated in the past. E.g., of Moh&cs took A moh&csi v&z 1526 -ban volt. T4ne disaster place in 1526. Nem szoktlafi8cigarettazni. I don’t smoke cigarettes (lit. didn’t use to smoke). It is easy to determine the general meaning and the oppositional structure of the tenses in this case, The Perfect refers to events eq?~ssly $ast in respect to the speech event; the Present covers call the other time rehtions, used even for reference to the past 7). As usual in the case of binary oppositions, one of the terms is more specific, called marked, than the other more general term, called umvwked 8). In the general case described above, the Perfect is the marked, and the Present is the wzmarked category. In the particular case of the usage with reference to the past the situation is reversed; normally the Perfect expresses reference to a past event, and the use of the Present in this sense is vividly emphatic. For this usage the Perfect is the ummzrked and the Present the marked category. But no contradiction is involved, for we are dealing with two different levels. (2) The situation, however, becomes more complicated if we consider the use of the tenses in the closely knit subordinate clauses, with lbogy ‘that’; e.g., Tzcdom, bogy j&z. udtam, hogy j6n. Tssdom, hogy @tt. Tudtam, bogy jdtt.
(Pres.-Pres.) (Perf.-Pres.) (Pres-Perf.) (Perf.-Perf.)
I I I I
know knew know knew
that that that that
he he he he
comes. came. came. had come.
In the first example ihe Present tense of the subordinate clause refers to a concurrent or coming event with respect to the speech event. In the second the same form can, in addition, refer to a past does not antedate the time reference in the main clause. example, the erfect tense refers to the past, but in the -7) This is, for example, the mleaning given for the tenses in general in the ammar, quoted in fn. 3. ed” and “unmarked” are very important notions to indicate that usually there is an asymmetrical imbalance between two terms of an opposition. the various kinds of asymmetries are not distinguished frequent US. rare, common VS. emphatic, etc.) and ” and “unmarked” are used as unclear craver terms,
259 fourth it refers to a twice-removed past, which antedates the time reference in the main clause. Thus, for the subordinate clauses with kgy ‘that’ it is not possible to apply the simple opposition e~@essly past vs. mw-$zst. The difficulty stems from the fact that the time reference is not related directly to the speech event, but to the time reference of the main clause 9). erefore the notion of relativity has to be introduced. Perfect expresses r&&ve adecedent and Present relative nob-a~tece~e~ 10). The invariant is the earlier or not earlier (simultaneous, later, or timeless} occurence in the time dimension; the variable aspect is the reference point to which it is related; this is the speech event in the main clause and the time reference in the main clause for the subordinate clause 11). This can be symbolized in the following way: x 0.
. &I-. . .buuc
__#.a._ Gf q~cc~h i3Wiit
. . . ‘7 ~i~CXd.,ii;~ ifi t;iiE
. . time reference in main t . .
not preceding in time
clause . time reference in subordinate clause
9) These cases are a common source of error in translations both to and from Hungarian. 10) The terminology is awkward, but natural languages are notoriously as metalanguages. t with reference 11) This is the reason why there is no need of a glu to another past) in Hungarian.
260 The direction of the arrow indicates the time relation with reference to the preceding time refc e ce in the chain 12). (3) In looser subordinate clauses this semantic opposition is applicable without difficulty. Interesting is, for instance, the comparison between the two following examples for the use of the Present and erfect in subordinate clauses taken from two well-known Hungarian poetical passages of the Nineteenth Century. After I have run through my a majdan at~s.dottam gorijngy6s broken path utamat , ,*. .*. . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . EszmCim gyiizedelme Zegyelz em- the victory of my ideals be my monument. lekjelem. (Jbzsef Eotvijs) l
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
When every enslaved race, grown tired of its yoke, goes on the battle field
* .
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
, .
a majd minden rabszolgankp JArmAt mednva sikra 269 . . .
Ott
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
there I shall fall on the field of combat.
el en harz. mezejen. mm
(Petdfi) the Present has no tense suffix, being characterized by a mood marker (-N} la; the Perfect is a compound form {Indicative Perfect + (invariable) VOZM}.The opposition is ain applicable. There is less variation of usages than in the Indicative, because the Conditional expresses’unreality, either a condition or an unfulfilled wish; e.g., (4) In the Conditional,
(I wish) he wouldn’t go. If he knew (lit. would know). degree referential time is also possible. E.g., Tudlum, bogy mcgor @ill. I knew that he will ask when he had come. X
resent-Perfect
\
Oc-
Ia) The morpheme {N) appears in the following alternant forms : /-na, -ne/, j-n;, and /‘-na, -ne/.
261 Brdr ne mevrt volt. Ha tocdta vohaa.
(I wish) he hadn’t gone (lit. would not have gone). If he had known’ (lit. would have known).
(5) The Imperative has no tense markers; it is characterized by the mood suffix (-J} 14) or by {-a) 16). In the Imperative, the situation is different from the other moods in so far as there is no tense distinction. To match this form with the tense distinctions in the other moods (or to “map” it onto them, to use a more fashionable expression) the following logical possibilities have to be considered: a) The Imperative does not participate in the tense opposition; b) The Imperative neutralizes the tense distinction between Present and Perfect, and semantically covers both (syncretismj i”j J or,
The meaning of tense in the Imperative should be identified with one of the tenses in the other moods (defectiveness). Of these three, the last is the correct solution. The general meaning of the Imperative is a desired action, usually a command, in the main clause and intended action in the subordinate clause. E.g., c)
Meq?ink. Ne lop&! AZ& j&a, hogy meg&Qe. AZ& jOtt, bogy me@lje.
Let us go. e comes in order to murder him e came in order to murder him
Thus, all the uses of th,e Imperative refer to events which are not actual facts, but intended subsequent to the reference time. Therefore, it belongs to the Present category as defined above. 14) The Imperative morpheme has a very complex allomorphic structure; this is described in my “The Imperative in Hungarian”, in Anzerican Studies in Umlic Lkguistics, Indiana University, 1960, pp. 83-92. 15) This form is always distinct from the corresponding form in the Indicative ; e,g., v&rod you expect him v&d you shall expect him le) The two cases ‘a’ and “b’ are not identical; one presupposes, the other excludes, time reference.
is
solution is further substantiated by the numerous syncretisms between the Imperative and the Indicative Present ; e.g., ‘We expect’ or ‘we expect him”
vdrjuk.
To sum up, the ungarian tense system shows a binary opposition between the two terms in the tense system, the Present and the rfect. 7% Perfect ex$wessesdative ahmbt ami the Present dative -asBntec&~vzt. erfect is the restricted, specific, “marked”’ term, and Preseni the general, “unmarked” term of the opposition. We conclude with the hypothesis that the Lability of the Mun+,b_e intwvhrtinn =f garian tense system and its resistance a6aninct ULSWI ***~s-u~c*“lL further tense forms may be motivated by the simplicity and the stringency 0f this opposition. JOHN LOTZ 27, New York
The purpose of this paper is to analyze and describe the meaning of the tenses in the conjugational pattern of Hungarian. In two respects structural analysis in semantics goes beyond. a mere atomistic inventory of the usages, which only outlines the semantic extension of the grammatical category in question. It requires (a) that the general value of the category be established by setting up the semantic feature which defines the category, and (b) that the place of the category in the relational network of the bqammar be determined by accounting for the pertinent semantic oppositions l). In Standard Hungarian, there are two tenses in common use: Present and Perfect 2j. They are distinguished in two *moods: in the Indicative and in the Conditional. In the Imperative there is only one class of verb forms; their “fitting” into the tense system will be examined below. The discussion will be presented in the following order. We will begin with the analysis of the use of the tenses (1) in single-clause sentences containing the Indicative, and then continue (2) with closely knit subordinate clauses with bogy ‘that’, followed (3) by looser subordinate (clauses; thereafter we will treat (4) the Conditional, and conclude the analysis (5) with the Imperative a). * 1) These principles were, to my knowledge, first consistently
applied to grammar by G. J. Ramstedt in his Uber die Cor,jugation des Khalkha-Nongoiikmoires de le Sociktk Finno-Ozcgrienne, Vol. XIX, Helsinki, 1903. They schen, have been fuliy developed and applied to other fields of linguistic analysis in structural linguistics, especially by R. Jakobson and by W. de Groot. 2) In addition to these two commonly used tenses there are a number of simple, compound, and periphrastic tenses in Hungarian. They all are either archaic, obsolete, or dialectal, with the exception of the periphrastic Future with fog. This construction, however, implies a superimposed differentiation within the Present and does not affect our problem. z) For more extensive data, see J. Lotz, Das ungavische S$rac?q.&em, Stockholm, 1939, pp. 148-158, and the recently published grammar by the Hungarian
256
(1) In the Indicative the tense suffix of the Present is I-01 or I-s/ 4) (written -sz), of the Perfect (-T} 5). The Present occurs in the following usages: a) Timeless reference, generally valid, or. habitually repeated events (often in laws of nature, proverbs, etc..) 6) ; e.g., A viz 100” - n&l fmr. W’ater boils at 100”. V&r nem v&k vizze. Bltood doesn’t become water. inden nap be@z. He comes in every day. b) Simultaneous Itt Gltik es &ok.
reference
to the time of the speech event ; e.g., I am sitting here and writing.
c) Reference to future or expected events, often with the adverb majd ‘later’ or with a temporal adverbial expression which makes the future reference clear ; e.g., He arrives the day after toHoln.aputBn &k&k morrow. d) Reference to the past in vivid retelling (praesens historicurn). This is much more common in Hungarian than in English ; e.g., Yesterday I was walking (M I Tegnap megyek az utcan. walk) on the street. The Perfect is used with reference to past events viewed from the Academy of Sciences, A mai magyav nyelv rendszeve - Leiro’ nyelvtan - I. kiitet, S&tan (System of the Modern Hungarian Language Bevezetis, Ha+aq - Phonetics, Morphology), Descriptive grammar - Volume I, Introduction Budapest, 1961, especially pp. 491-497. In the Hungarian examples we use the o:rthographic forms, and not a transcription. Since there is a complete isomorphism. between speech and script for our problem, the results are not affected. Tense forms are italicized. 4) Some grammars treat the I-s/ as part of the stem alternant, and not as a separate morpheme. Either approach gives the same result for the semantic side of the tenses. 5) (-T} has the followink; five alternants: l-t/, /-tt/, /-ott, -ett, -ottI; the selection is determined by the root morpheme for the vowel (vowel harmony) and by the preceding morpheme for the rest. 6) The pure nominal predicates function as Indicative Present Third persons (either singular or plural). E.g., A viz meleg. A macskak allatok.
The water is warm. Cats are animals.
point of view of the speech
event; such an event may be either a single happening or events repeated in the past. E.g., of Moh&cs took A moh&csi v&z 1526 -ban volt. T4ne disaster place in 1526. Nem szoktlafi8cigarettazni. I don’t smoke cigarettes (lit. didn’t use to smoke). It is easy to determine the general meaning and the oppositional structure of the tenses in this case, The Perfect refers to events eq?~ssly $ast in respect to the speech event; the Present covers call the other time rehtions, used even for reference to the past 7). As usual in the case of binary oppositions, one of the terms is more specific, called marked, than the other more general term, called umvwked 8). In the general case described above, the Perfect is the marked, and the Present is the wzmarked category. In the particular case of the usage with reference to the past the situation is reversed; normally the Perfect expresses reference to a past event, and the use of the Present in this sense is vividly emphatic. For this usage the Perfect is the ummzrked and the Present the marked category. But no contradiction is involved, for we are dealing with two different levels. (2) The situation, however, becomes more complicated if we consider the use of the tenses in the closely knit subordinate clauses, with lbogy ‘that’; e.g., Tzcdom, bogy j&z. udtam, hogy j6n. Tssdom, hogy @tt. Tudtam, bogy jdtt.
(Pres.-Pres.) (Perf.-Pres.) (Pres-Perf.) (Perf.-Perf.)
I I I I
know knew know knew
that that that that
he he he he
comes. came. came. had come.
In the first example ihe Present tense of the subordinate clause refers to a concurrent or coming event with respect to the speech event. In the second the same form can, in addition, refer to a past does not antedate the time reference in the main clause. example, the erfect tense refers to the past, but in the -7) This is, for example, the mleaning given for the tenses in general in the ammar, quoted in fn. 3. ed” and “unmarked” are very important notions to indicate that usually there is an asymmetrical imbalance between two terms of an opposition. the various kinds of asymmetries are not distinguished frequent US. rare, common VS. emphatic, etc.) and ” and “unmarked” are used as unclear craver terms,
259 fourth it refers to a twice-removed past, which antedates the time reference in the main clause. Thus, for the subordinate clauses with kgy ‘that’ it is not possible to apply the simple opposition e~@essly past vs. mw-$zst. The difficulty stems from the fact that the time reference is not related directly to the speech event, but to the time reference of the main clause 9). erefore the notion of relativity has to be introduced. Perfect expresses r&&ve adecedent and Present relative nob-a~tece~e~ 10). The invariant is the earlier or not earlier (simultaneous, later, or timeless} occurence in the time dimension; the variable aspect is the reference point to which it is related; this is the speech event in the main clause and the time reference in the main clause for the subordinate clause 11). This can be symbolized in the following way: x 0.
. &I-. . .buuc
__#.a._ Gf q~cc~h i3Wiit
. . . ‘7 ~i~CXd.,ii;~ ifi t;iiE
. . time reference in main t . .
not preceding in time
clause . time reference in subordinate clause
9) These cases are a common source of error in translations both to and from Hungarian. 10) The terminology is awkward, but natural languages are notoriously as metalanguages. t with reference 11) This is the reason why there is no need of a glu to another past) in Hungarian.
260 The direction of the arrow indicates the time relation with reference to the preceding time refc e ce in the chain 12). (3) In looser subordinate clauses this semantic opposition is applicable without difficulty. Interesting is, for instance, the comparison between the two following examples for the use of the Present and erfect in subordinate clauses taken from two well-known Hungarian poetical passages of the Nineteenth Century. After I have run through my a majdan at~s.dottam gorijngy6s broken path utamat , ,*. .*. . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . EszmCim gyiizedelme Zegyelz em- the victory of my ideals be my monument. lekjelem. (Jbzsef Eotvijs) l
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
When every enslaved race, grown tired of its yoke, goes on the battle field
* .
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
, .
a majd minden rabszolgankp JArmAt mednva sikra 269 . . .
Ott
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
there I shall fall on the field of combat.
el en harz. mezejen. mm
(Petdfi) the Present has no tense suffix, being characterized by a mood marker (-N} la; the Perfect is a compound form {Indicative Perfect + (invariable) VOZM}.The opposition is ain applicable. There is less variation of usages than in the Indicative, because the Conditional expresses’unreality, either a condition or an unfulfilled wish; e.g., (4) In the Conditional,
(I wish) he wouldn’t go. If he knew (lit. would know). degree referential time is also possible. E.g., Tudlum, bogy mcgor @ill. I knew that he will ask when he had come. X
resent-Perfect
\
Oc-
Ia) The morpheme {N) appears in the following alternant forms : /-na, -ne/, j-n;, and /‘-na, -ne/.
261 Brdr ne mevrt volt. Ha tocdta vohaa.
(I wish) he hadn’t gone (lit. would not have gone). If he had known’ (lit. would have known).
(5) The Imperative has no tense markers; it is characterized by the mood suffix (-J} 14) or by {-a) 16). In the Imperative, the situation is different from the other moods in so far as there is no tense distinction. To match this form with the tense distinctions in the other moods (or to “map” it onto them, to use a more fashionable expression) the following logical possibilities have to be considered: a) The Imperative does not participate in the tense opposition; b) The Imperative neutralizes the tense distinction between Present and Perfect, and semantically covers both (syncretismj i”j J or,
The meaning of tense in the Imperative should be identified with one of the tenses in the other moods (defectiveness). Of these three, the last is the correct solution. The general meaning of the Imperative is a desired action, usually a command, in the main clause and intended action in the subordinate clause. E.g., c)
Meq?ink. Ne lop&! AZ& j&a, hogy meg&Qe. AZ& jOtt, bogy me@lje.
Let us go. e comes in order to murder him e came in order to murder him
Thus, all the uses of th,e Imperative refer to events which are not actual facts, but intended subsequent to the reference time. Therefore, it belongs to the Present category as defined above. 14) The Imperative morpheme has a very complex allomorphic structure; this is described in my “The Imperative in Hungarian”, in Anzerican Studies in Umlic Lkguistics, Indiana University, 1960, pp. 83-92. 15) This form is always distinct from the corresponding form in the Indicative ; e,g., v&rod you expect him v&d you shall expect him le) The two cases ‘a’ and “b’ are not identical; one presupposes, the other excludes, time reference.
is
solution is further substantiated by the numerous syncretisms between the Imperative and the Indicative Present ; e.g., ‘We expect’ or ‘we expect him”
vdrjuk.
To sum up, the ungarian tense system shows a binary opposition between the two terms in the tense system, the Present and the rfect. 7% Perfect ex$wessesdative ahmbt ami the Present dative -asBntec&~vzt. erfect is the restricted, specific, “marked”’ term, and Preseni the general, “unmarked” term of the opposition. We conclude with the hypothesis that the Lability of the Mun+,b_e intwvhrtinn =f garian tense system and its resistance a6aninct ULSWI ***~s-u~c*“lL further tense forms may be motivated by the simplicity and the stringency 0f this opposition. JOHN LOTZ 27, New York