Next: Primarily aspectual verbs.
Up: The Tamil Verb
Previous: Syntax of aspectual
Since in Tamil aspect is an optional
rather than an obligatory category, aspect must be seen as a polarity of
marked versus unmarked. The lack of occurrence of an aspectual verb indicates
that the aspectual notion that is not present is unmarked, or neutral, rather
than absent. That is, a sentence that contains a completive marker, such as
ÂÕà (v)idu, certainly marks completive aspect, but its absence
is not a `zero' marker for non-completion, the way absence of a plural marker
in English is a `zero' marker of singularity. Absence of a completive
aspectual verb does not indicate that there was no completion, but simply that
it is unmarked, and therefore vague, for completion.Tamil (and other
Dravidian languages) differ from, e.g., English in this respect, since it
seems to be the case that English speakers share the presupposition that an
action is completed unless otherwise stated, whereas Tamil speakers seem to
share the presupposition that an action is not completed unless stated as
definitely complete. Thus a sentence like `I went to the library yesterday'
seems odd if followed by `but I never got there.' Rather, the first sentence
would have to be replaced by something like `I started out for the
library yesterday' if it is to be followed by `but I never got there.' In
Tamil, in contrast, the analogous sentence ¼Ô¨ ؼ¢â Á²½ÕØÀÀÕ¡´Õ ؽÔØƨ
naan neettu laybreerikki pooneen is not strange if followed by ÈÆÔ
ؽԲ ضÀ§×Á aanaa, pooy seeralle (`I never arrived.) since ؽÔØƨ
pooneen `I went' is unmarked for completion---it declares simply that
motion away from the addressee occurred. However, if ؽÔØƨ pooneen
were changed to add aspectual ÂÕà (v)idu, i.e., ؽԲ¥Ø¹¨
pooytteen then adding ÈÆÔ Ø½Ô² ضÀ§×Á aanaa, pooy
seeralle is odd.
Vasu Renganathan
Sat Nov 2 21:16:08 EST 1996