Verbs that change meaning in preterit and imperfect
I'm just opening this thread so I can attach a Word file of some of these verbs. (I couldn't figure out how to attach to a reply to the other thread in which this is being discussed.)
For anyone interested...
25 Answers
látigo said:
"Knew is being described at the beginning aspect of a non-cyclic verb (began to know) even though many books say "found out" is what it means.
Thanks. This is exactly my point: it is an approximate translation, but it is not the same!
We are have to remember that events have a beginning, a middle, and an end. Pret, describes the beginning or end aspect (perfective) while the imperfect describes the middle (imperfective). In samdie example-" When the door opened, I KNEW that I was in trouble. "Knew is being described at the beginning aspect of a non-cyclic verb (began to know) even though many books say "found out" is what it means.Now once we know it, we can continue to know it (impecfective aspect).
samdie said:
(This started out as a reply in the older thread but while I was composing it y'all started a new topic. So ...).James Santiago said:The only thing I'm telling you is that it works well for us. That there may be exceptions to the rule does not diminish its usefulness.And yet we've also (all) seen cases where rules can (in the long run) cause more problems than they solve (in the short run). The frequently recurring case being ser/estar. The permanent/temporary distinction also causes light bulbs to appear over learners' heads but Lazarus thinks (as do I) that it starts them down the broad, easy path to damnation. They embrace what seems to them to be a readily understandable distinction in preference to learning a "foreign way of thinking" when it is, precisely, the way of viewing the world that needs to change.By the way, we can (and occasionally do) convey the sense of saber in the preterite in English without something like "found out". Consider: "I knew in a moment it must be St. Nick." and if you wish to quibble about "in a moment" bearing the responsibility of the preterite; how about "When the door opened, I knew I was in trouble"?
>
samdie said:
Natasha said:
No. samdie is giving an example that the past tense of "know" can mean something quite different than the present tense. This usage is archaic (as tagged), but it occurs in the King James Version of the Bible more than once.
After last week I was reluctant to say "KJV" (Thought it might get the thread deleted.) jeje
As long as we don't start discussing that Anon family . . .
Natasha said:
No. samdie is giving an example that the past tense of "know" can mean something quite different than the present tense. This usage is archaic (as tagged), but it occurs in the King James Version of the Bible more than once.
After last week I was reluctant to say "KJV" (Thought it might get the thread deleted.) jeje
Heidita said:
"7. trans. To have carnal acquaintance or sexual intercourse with. arch.
OMG....so I know Eddy means that''? Eddy....please say something!
You should have been familiar with this meaning from your knowledge of "connaître" in French (if not from the English). P.S. In French it's not archaic although there are plenty of other ways of saying the same thing.
Heidita said:
"7. trans. To have carnal acquaintance or sexual intercourse with. arch. OMG....so I know Eddy means that''? Eddy....please say something!
No. samdie is giving an example that the past tense of "know" can mean something quite different than the present tense. This usage is archaic (as tagged), but it occurs in the King James Version of the Bible more than once. Example:
Genesis 4:1 in four different versions
And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD. (KJV)
Y CONOCIO Adam á su mujer Eva, la cual concibió y parió á Caín, y dijo: Adquirido he varón por Jehová. (Reina Valera)
Adam lay with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. She said, "With the help of the LORD I have brought forth a man." (NIV)
El hombre se unió a su mujer Eva, y ella concibió y dio a luz a Caín.[a] Y dijo: «¡Con la ayuda del Señor, he tenido un hijo varón!» (Nueva Versión Internacional)
"7. trans. To have carnal acquaintance or sexual intercourse with. arch.
OMG....so I know Eddy means that''? Eddy....please say something!
Heidita said:
I think it is quite clear that the examples given "know/meet" are referring clearly to people. And I think it could not be more specific.
Lazarus and Sam....your examples are taken out of context. I do not think that there is any doubt at all that you can use know in the past tense...but not with people if they are still alive and kicking..
I learnt: I knew Mister Smith. (He is either dead ...or simply dead for me!)
From the OED (the entry for "know"):
"7. trans. To have carnal acquaintance or sexual intercourse with. arch.
Chiefly a Hebraism which has passed into the mod. langs., but found also in Gr. and L. So Ger. erkennen, F. connaître."
thanx alot james, it is really helpful it answered some of my questions about these verbs.
thanx again
Quentin said:
Here were are changing from considering the (one) meaning of the verb from the imperfect aspect to the preterite aspect. I do like the term aspectual change, though. It makes the conversation a little more high brow. It almost makes you think that the speaker might know what he's talking about
You do have a funny day today, quentin. lol
Usually we'd probably be talking about looking at an object from two different viewpoints, but more generally, its moving from considering any aspects of an entitiy to another of its aspects, If we were talking about ambulances, we could discuss them from the aspect of being a mode of transportation or, to change aspects, we could discuss them as proving on-site medical care, or to change aspect again, to consider them as a source of urban noise pollution or....
Here were are changing from considering the (one) meaning of the verb from the imperfect aspect to the preterite aspect. I do like the term aspectual change, though. It makes the conversation a little more high brow. It almost makes you think that the speaker might know what he's talking about.
Natasha said:
lazarus1907 said:
Heidita said:
I do not think that there is any doubt at all that you can use know in the past tense...but not with people if they are still alive and kicking..
I obviously cannot explain myself clearly, because I keep getting people disagreeing with me for something I just said myself. These two verbs in English are ideal for explaining how you can take one meaning in Spanish, and present it in two different ways using preterit and imperfect. They are perfect for illustrating the difference between these tenses... as long as you make them focus on the fact that the meaning can be viewed as one in Spanish. The point is: Spanish uses one verb modifying it through aspectual changes, while English uses two verbs. Keeping this single meaning and viewing it through different glasses (preterit / imperfect) is an ideal exercise for understanding Spanish aspect. Telling the students that it is an aberration or an exception because the meaning changes with tense (since they often translate differently into English, a different language), is a waste of an extremely valuable and unusual teaching resource for something quite tricky: imperfect and preterit.
Sorry, really dumb question but can someone please tell me the definition of an aspectual change? Is it just the change in tense from preterite to imperfect? I even looked up aspect in the (English) dictionary and it didn't help.
>
We have only really one past tense but two ways (aspects) to describe it, either perfective or imperfective
Natasha said:
lazarus1907 said:
Heidita said:
I do not think that there is any doubt at all that you can use know in the past tense...but not with people if they are still alive and kicking..
I obviously cannot explain myself clearly, because I keep getting people disagreeing with me for something I just said myself. These two verbs in English are ideal for explaining how you can take one meaning in Spanish, and present it in two different ways using preterit and imperfect. They are perfect for illustrating the difference between these tenses... as long as you make them focus on the fact that the meaning can be viewed as one in Spanish. The point is: Spanish uses one verb modifying it through aspectual changes, while English uses two verbs. Keeping this single meaning and viewing it through different glasses (preterit / imperfect) is an ideal exercise for understanding Spanish aspect. Telling the students that it is an aberration or an exception because the meaning changes with tense (since they often translate differently into English, a different language), is a waste of an extremely valuable and unusual teaching resource for something quite tricky: imperfect and preterit.
Sorry, really dumb question but can someone please tell me the definition of an aspectual change? Is it just the change in tense from preterite to imperfect? I even looked up aspect in the (English) dictionary and it didn't help.
>
lazarus1907 said:
Heidita said:
I do not think that there is any doubt at all that you can use know in the past tense...but not with people if they are still alive and kicking..
I obviously cannot explain myself clearly, because I keep getting people disagreeing with me for something I just said myself. These two verbs in English are ideal for explaining how you can take one meaning in Spanish, and present it in two different ways using preterit and imperfect. They are perfect for illustrating the difference between these tenses... as long as you make them focus on the fact that the meaning can be viewed as one in Spanish. The point is: Spanish uses one verb modifying it through aspectual changes, while English uses two verbs. Keeping this single meaning and viewing it through different glasses (preterit / imperfect) is an ideal exercise for understanding Spanish aspect. Telling the students that it is an aberration or an exception because the meaning changes with tense (since they often translate differently into English, a different language), is a waste of an extremely valuable and unusual teaching resource for something quite tricky: imperfect and preterit.
Sorry, really dumb question but can someone please tell me the definition of an aspectual change? Is it just the change in tense from preterite to imperfect? I even looked up aspect in the (English) dictionary and it didn't help.
Heidita said:
I do not think that there is any doubt at all that you can use know in the past tense...but not with people if they are still alive and kicking..
I obviously cannot explain myself clearly, because I keep getting people disagreeing with me for something I just said myself. These two verbs in English are ideal for explaining how you can take one meaning in Spanish, and present it in two different ways using preterit and imperfect. They are perfect for illustrating the difference between these tenses... as long as you make them focus on the fact that the meaning can be viewed as one in Spanish. The point is: Spanish uses one verb modifying it through aspectual changes, while English uses two verbs. Keeping this single meaning and viewing it through different glasses (preterit / imperfect) is an ideal exercise for understanding Spanish aspect. Telling the students that it is an aberration or an exception because the meaning changes with tense (since they often translate differently into English, a different language), is a waste of an extremely valuable and unusual teaching resource for something quite tricky: imperfect and preterit.
I think it is quite clear that the examples given "know/meet" are referring clearly to people. And I think it could not be more specific.
Lazarus and Sam....your examples are taken out of context. I do not think that there is any doubt at all that you can use know in the past tense...but not with people if they are still alive and kicking..
I learnt: I knew Mister Smith. (He is either dead ...or simply dead for me!)
