APPENDIX THE MAJOR CHARACTERISTICS OF THE BULGARIAN TENSE-ASPECT SYSTEM The Bulgarian system of verbal aspect may be said to consist of two basic distinctions: the perfective/imperfective distinction, a purely aspectual one, and the AoristlImperfect (Past Tense) distinction, which is a tense-aspect distinction. THE TENSE SYSTEM Bulgarian features a system of nine tenses. Examples are given below (in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd pers.sing., active voice) for the first five tenses - which are more relevant to the present study. I} The Present Tense. With an imperfective verb, piSairnpfv 'write': (az) pisa 'I write/am writing' (ti) pises 'you write/are writing' (toj) pise 'he writes/is writing' With a perfective verb, napisapfv 'write': (az) napisa 'I write' (ti) napiseS 'you write' (toj) napise 'he writes' Perfective Present verb forms are allowed only in special syntactic environments - denoting non-bounded repetition (disallowing single acts), conditional or futurate meanings. 2} The Aorist Tense (Bulgarian minalo sviirseno vreme, 'past completed tense'). With an imperfective verb, piSairnpfv 'write': 329 330 APPENDIX: THE BULGARIAN TENSE-AsPECT SYSTEM (az) pisah 'I wrote [for some time]' (ti) pisa 'you wrote [for some time]' (toj) pisa 'he wrote [for some time]' With a perfective verb, napisapfv 'write': (az) napisah 'I wrote [to the end/completely]' (ti) napisa 'you wrote [to the end/completely], (toj) napisa 'he wrote [to the end/completely], 3) The Imperfect Tense (Bulgarian minalo nesvarseno vreme 'past non-com­ pleted tense'). With an imperfective verb, piSairnpfv 'write': (az) piseh 'I was writing/wrote [habitually]' (ti) pisese 'you were writing/wrote [habitually], (toj) pisese 'he was writing/wrote [habitually]' With a perfective verb, napisapfv 'write': (az) napiseh 'I wrote [to the end, habitually], (ti) napiseSe 'you wrote [to the end, habitually], (toj) napiseSe 'he wrote [to the end, habitually], The most frequent and natural verb forms within the AoristlImperfect distinction are the perfective Aorist (toj napisa 'he wrote [to the end/completely],) and the imperfective Imperfect (toj pisese 'he was writing/wrote [habitually],); they denote the two prototypical aspectual values - of perfectivity and imperfectivity. Less com­ mon than the previous two, imperfective Aorist forms (toj pisa 'he wrote [for some time]') denote actions that are not completed with a particular, pragmatically iden­ tifiable result, but are terminated. Even more rare, perfective Imperfect forms (toj napiseSe 'he wrote [to the end, habitually]') have a specific meaning. If their homo­ nymous use to denote Future-in-the-Past actions is ignored, they refer to a non­ bounded series of actions in which every separate action is a completed one. The contrast between the Imperfect and the Aorist with imperfective verbs very often finds no morphological expression: a relatively large number of verb forms outside the second and third person singular, where the distinction is made always, are homonymous for the two tenses. 4) The Perfect Tense (Bulgarian minalo neopredeleno vreme 'past indefinite tense'), broadly similar to the Present Perfect Tense in English but allowing adverb­ ials of past time like vcera 'yesterday', predi tri dni 'three days ago', etc. The auxi­ liary is slim 'be'. APPENDIX: THE BULGARIAN TENSE-AsPECT SYSTEM 331 With an imperfective verb, piSaimpfv 'write': (az) sam pisal 'I have written' (ti) si pisal 'you have written' (toj) e pisal 'he has written' With a perfective verb, napisapfv 'write': (az) sam napisal 'I have written' (ti) si napisal 'you have written' (toj) e napisal 'he has written'. 5) The Past Perfect Tense, broadly similar to the Past Perfect Tense in English: With an imperfective verb, piSaimpfv 'write': (az) bjah pisal 'I had written' (ti) beIe pisal 'you had written' (toj) beIe pisal 'he had written' With a perfective verb, napisapfv 'write': (az) bjah napisal 'I had written' (ti) beIe napisal 'you had written' (toj) beIe napisal 'he had written'. 6. The Future Tense. Future auxilary ste 'will' (negative: njama 'won't' + da 'to'). 7. The Future-in-the-Past Tense. Future-in-the-past auxilary stjah 'would' + da 'to' (negative: njamase 'wouldn't' + da 'to'). 8. The Future Perfect Tense. Future auxilary ste 'will' + samlbiida 'be' + past active participle (negative: njama 'won't' + da 'to' + samlbiida 'be' + past active participle). 9. The Future-in-the-Past Perfect Tense. Future-in-the-past auxilary stjah 'would' + da 'to' + samlbiida 'be' + past active participle (negative: njamase 'wouldn't' + da 'to' + samlbiida 'be' + past active participle). 332 APPENDIX: THE BULGARIAN TENSE-AsPECT SYSTEM THE ASPECT SYSTEM The great majority of Bulgarian verbs are either perfective or imperfective, like napisapfv 'write [complete an act of writing)' and piSaimpfv 'write [generally or be in the process of writing]' , already used above, in the description of the tense system. The perfective/imperfective distinction is of a mixed type. It can be regarded as partly morphological and partly lexical. Perfective verbs are formed by affixation, usually through prefixes. But very often the particular prefix signals other meanings as well, e.g. transitivity, or a certain change in the lexical meaning. Taken in iso­ lation, any prefix used to make a given perfective verb out of an imperfective one, can be found to serve other functions when complemented to a different verb. The great majority of unprefixed verbs are imperfectives, out of which their perfective partners are formed. For example, piSaimpfv 'write [generally or be in the process of writing)' - napisapfv 'write [complete an act of writing]'. There are few primary perfectives, e.g. dampfv 'give'. There is a special group of so-called secondary imperfective verbs (napiSVamimpfv 'write') which denote a bounded action - the same as the one denoted by the per­ fective verb (napisapfv 'write [complete an act of writing]') but which is repeated an indefinite number of times. These verbs are regularly formed in Bulgarian (in contrast to other Slavic languages where the phenomenon, called secondary imperfectivisation, is less widespread) by adding the suffix -vam to the perfective verb. Certain minor additional morphophonetic changes may occur. Some secondary imperfectives are used less often - when the primary imperfective is found to be capable of expressing the boundedness of the individual action, presented as indefi­ nitely serialised. There are also several hundred biaspectual verbs in Bulgarian that may be said to fall outside the system of aspect. They function in a way similar to the functioning of verbs in English and, according to traditional descriptions, their aspectual value is explicated on the basis of their use in particular contexts. A detailed description in English of the Bulgarian tense-aspect system can be found in Lindstedt (1985). REFERENCES Allen 1966: W.R.Allen. The verb system ofpresent-day American English. The Hague: Mouton. Allwood 1976: J.Allwood. Linguistic communication as action and cooperation. A Study in pragmatics. (Gothenburg Monographs in Linguistics 2). Dept. of Linguistics. University of Goteborg. Andersson 1973: J.Anderson. An essay concerning aspect. Some considerations of a general character arising from the Abbe Darrigol's analysis of the Basque verb. The HagueIParis: Mouton. Atanassova et al 1988a: T.Atanassova, M.Rankova, R.Roussev, D.Spassov, V.Phillipov, G.Chakalov. Bulgarian-English dictionary, Vol. I, A - N (3rd edition). Sofia: Naouka i izkoustvo. - 1988b: T.Atanassova, M.Rankova, R.Roussev, D.Spassov, V.Phillipov, G.Chakalov. Bulgarian-Eng­ lish dictionary, Vol. II. 0 - JA (3rd edition). Sofia: Naouka i izkoustvo. Bach 1981: E.Bach. On time, tense and aspect. An essay in English metaphysics. In P.Cole (ed.). Radical pragmatics, 63-81. New York: Academic Press. - 1986: E.Bach. The algebra of events. Linguistics and Philosophy 9, 5-16. Bache 1983: C.Bache. Verbal aspect. A general theory and its application to present-day English. Odense: Odense University Press. Bartsch 1995: R.Bartsch. Situations, tense, and aspect. Dynamic discourse ontology and the semantic flexibility of temporal system in German and English (Groningen-Amsterdam Studies in Semantics; 13). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Binnick 1991: R.I.Binnick. Time and the verb. A guide to tense and aspect. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Brinton 1988: L.J.Brinton. The development of English aspectual systems. Aspectualizers and post­ verbal particles. Cambridge, etc.: Cambridge University Press. - 1998: LJ.Brinton. Aspectuality and countability: a cross-categorial analogy. English Language and Linguistics 2, 37-63. Bulygina 1982: T.V.Bulygina. K postroeniju tipologii predikatov v russkom jazyke. In Seliverstova 1982a, 7-85. Bybee 1985: J.L.Bybee. Morphology. A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam! Philadelphia: John Benjamins. - et al 1994: J.Bybee, R.Perkins, W.Pagliuca. The evolution of grammar. Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. Caenepeel 1989: M.Caenepeel. Aspect, temporal ordering and perspective in narrative fiction. Edin­ burgh (Ph.D. dissertation, the University of Edinburgh). Carlson 1977/1980: G.N.Carlson. Reference to kinds in English. New York, 1980 (=Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, 1977): Garland Publishing. - 1982: G.N.Carlson. Generic terms and generic sentences. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 11, 145-181. - and Tanenhaus 1984: