--- In lambengolmor@y..., Ivan A Derzhanski <iad@m...> wrote:
> By contrast, English is not our subject here, and while we may
> think that the established grammatical/linguistic terminology
> applied to English is suboptimal (as it often is), parting ways
> with it on this forum is probably never advisable.
Indeed, we should avoid misunderstandings. But I thought I made clear
I was speaking of the group of participles of strong verbs like "been,
seen, done, gone, fallen, spoken", having the suffix "(e)n(e)", like
in one kind of Eldarin past tense (coincidence or not). If you tell me
"passive participle" (and "irregular") is the standard term for that,
so be it. As you said, English grammar isn't our main concern, here.
> Re participles: I don't see why a participle can't be past
> and/or passive just because it can be part of constructions
> that are themselves not past and/or not passive.
Maybe. Quite a few of the participles mentioned above are formed from
intransitive verbs, however, so they can't possibly be used in ANY
passive construction. "Suboptimal terminology" would be a mild way to
put it, then.
Concerning another point: If we want to compare Elvish languages and
their tense structure with other languages, we won't be able to avoid
the established terminology in this area entirely. And "resultative"
is one of the possible meanings of perfect tense, others are called
"experiential" or "extended now" (recent past/persistent situation).
Naturally, I didn't invent those notions myself.