Aspect in Ancient Greek - Nijmegen Centre for Semantics

3.2 The perfective-imperfective distinction 57(82) ν δεξιen dexiaiin right.datππέωνhippeōnhorsemen.genδdeprtκαkaiandνeninριστερaristeraileft.datπελταστα̋peltastaistargeteers.datατοautouhim.genχώραchōraplace.nomτε καte kaiandτνtōnthe.gen νēnbe.pst.IPFV.3sg“To the right and left of him (= Cyrus) and the cavalry was the (usual)place for the targeteers.” X. Cyr. 8.5.10In (80) and (81) process predicates (the mother suckle it, they carry long spears)are interpreted habitually; in (82) we even have a habitual interpretation of astative predicate. This shows that the habitual interpretation of imperfectiveaspect is not restricted to quantised predicates.Why not drop the coercion part of de Swart’s analysis (i+ii) as well? Whathappens when we hold on to the idea that perfective and imperfective aspectare sensitive to the quantised-homogeneous distinction (iv), but pursue to treatthem as aspectual operators rather than aspectually sensitive operators, anoption briefly mentioned above in section 3.2.3.1? 24,25The obvious drawback of this approach is that one looses the main advantageof de Swart’s analysis. Her use of coercion was an elegant way tohandle variation in interpretation without assuming ambiguity. If perfectiveand imperfective aspect are instead analysed as aspectual operators, we mustassume more than one operator corresponding to perfective aspect (for example,Krifka’s AOR for the interpretation of completion and a second operatorfor the ingressive interpretation), and similarly for imperfective aspect (for example,Krifka’s PROG for the processual interpretation, and a second one forthe habitual interpretation). In this way we end up with an ambiguous semanticsfor perfective and imperfective aspect, despite the fact that the operatorscorresponding to the perfective have something in common (their outputs arequantised predicates), just like those corresponding to the imperfective (theydeliver homogeneous predicates). Given my challenge to develop an ambiguityfreesemantics for perfective and imperfective aspect, this option won’t do.The aspectual operator option has a second disadvantage when comparedto the coercion approach. Only the latter explains the restriction of the ingressiveinterpretation of the perfective to homogeneous (=atelic) predicates.Since it attributes the meaning effects we find with the perfective and imper-24 This is the position I defend in Bary (2006).25 A comparison to the English progressive may clarify the difference between an aspectualoperator and a coercion approach: on an aspectual operator approach, the shifts we find withthe perfective and imperfective are comparable with the shift that is inherently associatedwith the progressive (from non-stative to stative predicates), whereas on a coercion approachthese shifts are comparable with the reinterpretation of the input (from stative to non-stativepredicates) that occurs when the predicate-argument structure is stative.