Talk:Imperfective aspect

Subinterval definition from Dowty not about imperfective aspect

The last two sentences in the first paragraph, describing the imperfective and perfective in "logical" terms, does not describe any mainstream formal analysis of the imperfective aspect. The cited source, Dowty (1986) is describing different lexical aspects and gives the listed subinterval-based definitions to stative and telic predicates -- not remotely the same thing as imperfective and perfective aspects. As such, this source is irrelevant and frankly I think these two sentences should be removed or replaced from this article entirely. It's possible this section could be incorporated into Stative verb#Dowty's analysis, which contains Dowty's perspective on statives from an earlier paper already, but it absolutely doesn't belong in an article on imperfective aspect, particularly so high up. Sparksbeth (talk) 07:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having downloaded the paper in question, it's even worse than I thought -- though Dowty does use the word "Aspect" in the title, he clarifies right at the beginning of the paper that this is about Aktionsart rather than grammatical aspect, and the word(s) "imperfect(ive)" never appear in the text. Sparksbeth (talk) 13:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sparksbeth: Good catch. Those two last sentences are using the definitions given on p42 of Dowty's paper, with "stative" changed to "imperfective" and "an accomplishment/achievement (or kinesis)" changed into "perfective"...! It would be non-controversial to simply remove this. --bonadea contributions talk 14:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I know something of grammar, and something of linguistics, I do not know the kind of technical linguistic analysis represented by this source. Even if the source fully supported the content, I rather doubt that this kind of technical, pseudo-mathematical, analysis belongs in the lead section with no introduction or context. And if, as both of you say, this is in no way supported by the cited source for the use here, It could be removed without delay, IMO. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It hadn't occurred to me but yeah, this really wouldn't be good to put this high up even if it were supported by the source. I've deleted the sentences in question; someone can always grab them from Dowty if they want to incorporate them somewhere in an article on stative predicates or aktionsart. Sparksbeth (talk) 22:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "formal definition" was apparently added in this edit by Martinfuchs on 19 July 2017. That account made a total of 3 edits, all within the space of 1/2 hour, and has not edited since. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why Dowty (1986) was cited, when the correct source for the definition of the subinterval property is Dowty (1977), based on Bennett & Partee (1972). This is a relevant definition of grammatical aspect for linguists, but if you think it's confusing for the general audience, you can't take it out, or move it somewhere below in the article. Martinfuchs (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinfuchs (talk • contribs) 12:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm dubious that Dowty (1977) contains a passage that is exactly the same as a passage in Dowty (1986) but replacing "stative" with "imperfective." Certainly if it does, I have a lower opinion of Dowty! The subinterval property as described here could potentially be worth incorporating into Lexical aspect, though probably lower down in that article. If there's a similar formal analysis of the imperfective having a similar property, it could be worked into a section lower down into this article using that source. Sparksbeth (talk) 22:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead Sentence/Interior Composition

The imperfective (abbreviated ipfv or more ambiguously impv) is a grammatical aspect used to describe a situation viewed with interior composition.

The lead sentence defines the imperfective in terms of "interior composition" but this term is never defined in the article or through a Wiki link. It seems too complex for a general reader as a way to define the imperfective. My suggestion would be to promote the second sentence to the lead, and/or define 'interior composition' somewhere in the body. --Spasemunki (talk) 03:12, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Perfective Aspect being discussed on this Wiki?

This page is dedicated to imperfective aspect but the majority of the text (the biggest section) is about perfective aspect. Shouldn't that text be transferred to the perfective aspect wiki page? Itsmeyash31 (talk) 14:17, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed.DenisHowe (talk) 11:14, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

African American Vernacular

If the vernacular "he be working" is somehow a more relevant example than "he is working", it would be great if this could be clarified in the text. DenisHowe (talk) 11:14, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

English progressive

The section on English progressive does not really explain how it differs from imperfective, which seems like an important point. DenisHowe (talk) 11:39, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]