Talk:Finite verb

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Definition

Why does the definition of finite verb in the first sentence include person as a defining characteristic? By definition, finite seems to concern tense. Most IE languages, among others, also happen to have person/number features for finite verbs, but this does not seem to me to be a defining characteristic. --jonsafari 22:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with and wish to elaborate on Jonsafari's objection. The definition unwitting centres on features of certain languages, namely those that inflect verbs in a certain way; whereas the notion of finititude is more general. What we need instead is a functional definition of finite verb.

To give a concrete example: Chinese does not inflect verbs for tense, person, etc.; yet we would all still feel comfortable saying that Chinese uses finite verbs and (with a suitable grasp of vocabulary) would experience no difficulties identifying finite verbs in a Chinese text.

--Philopedia 22:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The "no person" ("unlimited by subject") definition of non-finite forms (and, by opposition, the "with person" definition of finite forms) is used by many linguists — I think because it fits what are defined as infinitives/participles/gerunds in most "important" languages (for Westerners), especially Latin and Greek. But it does not fit, for example, Portuguese/Galician or Sardinian so-called "conjugated" infinitives, which some have even argued to be finite forms (which to me sounds ridiculous) merely because they don't fit that pre-made "no person" definition of infinitives (which was chosen to accomodate/model the infinitives of other Western languages). The "no tense" definition of non-finite forms (which means "no tense/aspect" in Western languages where the tense/aspect distinction is morphologically blurred) wouldn't fit Latin, nor even English, so most traditional Western linguists wouldn't accept it. Certainly, "finite" as used by traditional linguists is not (at least primarily) concerned with tense.

My own personal opinion on the matter is that what really differentiates what traditionally have been labelled "finite" from "non-finite" forms is not what the traditional definition of "non-finite = no person" says, and neither the fact of being able/unable to express whatever other inflectional category like tense, aspect or voice, since as you mention, all this is something that varies greatly from language to language and so any definition based on them would be "language-biassed" (one can find languages where these inflectional categories are expressed in both finite and non-finite forms: person in Portuguese, either the subject through inflections: amarmos "our loving", the object through clitics: amá-la "to love her", or both combined: amarmo-la "our loving her"; tense/aspect in Latin: audītūrus esse "to be going to hear", or in English: to have done; voice in English: to be loved, or in Latin: amārī; etc.). But the fact that the finite forms can "predicate" (they can be the verbal nucleus of a clause/sentence), while the non-finite forms cannot (they function as nouns, adjectives or adverbs, but not as "real" –predicating– verbs). For example, compare the clauses you go/went to the cinema, where the finite verbal forms go and went are used to "say something" (predicate) about "someone/something" (the subject), with the mere phrases to go to/your going to the cinema, where the non-finite verbal forms to go (without a defined subject, like Portuguese ir) and (your) going (with a defined subject, you, expressed in English non-finite forms not inflectionally but by means of a possessive: your, while in Portuguese it could be expressed as an inflection in the infinitive itself: [tu] ires), are not "saying something about someone/something" (what "real verbs" do), but merely "naming/identifying/referencing" something (what "nouns" do), in this case "naming" an event. But, as I said, this is just my own opinion. Uaxuctum 23:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)