Íslenskt mál og almenn málfræði - 01.01.1992, Page 144

142
Jóhannes Gísli Jónsson
Given these considerations, (23b) appears to be an example of a
resultative perfect. However, the perfect in (23b) is existential as seen
by the fact that only a have-perfect can be used to translate (23b) into
Icelandic:
(24) a Shakespeare hefur samið frábær leikrit.
Shakespeare has written impressive dramas
b *Shakespeare er búinn að semja frábær leikrit.
Shakespeare is finished to write impressive dramas
The ungrammaticality of (24b) has nothing to do with the fact that
Shakespeare died a very long time ago. This example would be equally
bad even if the subject was a playwright who died quite recently. The
crucial fact about (24b) seems to be that the state resulting from Shake-
speare’s writing (i.e. the existence of his plays) cannot be emphasized,
since it is precisely this state that makes the use of the perfect possible.
Hence, the perfect in (24b) cannot be resultative.
4. Conclusions
On the extended now theory the present perfect supplies a temporal
frame that extends into the past and includes the present time. This is the
very essence of the present perfect per se. Still, depending on various
factors, the perfect can be split into three different uses: universal,
existential and resultative. I have argued that this classification governs
the use of /zave-perfects and b/-perfects in Icelandic. In short, have-
perfects are compatible with all of these three categories, whereas
b/-perfects can only be universal or resultative. In the latter case, bf-
perfects are clearly favored over /zave-perfects.
It must be stressed, however, that our classification of the present
perfect is not based on very clear criteria, esp. w.r.t. resultative perfects.
I have tried to clarify the notion of a resultative perfect with various
examples, but there is clearly more to be said about this issue. Needless
to say, I leave this matter for future research.