Two more that spring to mind:
Joy to the world, the lord *is *come.
Their light *is *gone out.
I think this is right. Wikipedia claims it was a common variant on the present perfect tense in Early Modern English, citing examples from Shakespeare and Tennyson among others:
I am with those who think it is an archaic version of the “present perfect”. I use scare quotes because this form is generally not perfective and I call it the compound past, as opposed to the simple past which is usually perfective in meaning. Contrast “Perleman has proved Poincaré’s conjecture” (Perleman is still alive and possibly still proving things) with “Hilbert proved Waring’s conjecture” (Hilbert is deceased).
In various IE languages I am aware of, verbs of motion do their compound past using a form of “be” and other compound pasts using “have”. I assume that English used to do that and still did so in King James’s day and has since ceased doing so.
It is worth noting that Latin had an inflected imperfect past and an inflected perfect. I assume that the descendents of those tenses in French are the imperfect and simple past, resp.
It would make sense to refer to the original Greek, I would presume: see W’s Aorist. This is way above my head, but seems to hold the clue.
In the general summary of Aorist in a number of languages, the following strikes me as interesting as a locus of syntactic/semantic tension:
[Begin excerpt]
Hermeneutic implications
Because the aorist was not maintained in either Latin or the Germanic languages, there have long been difficulties in translating the Greek New Testament into Western languages. The aorist has often been interpreted as making a strong statement about the aspect or even the time of an event, when, in fact, due to its being the unmarked (default) form of the Greek verb, such implications are often left to context. Thus, within New Testament hermeneutics, it is considered an exegetical fallacy to attach undue significance to uses of the aorist.[13] Although one may draw specific implications from an author’s use of the imperfective or perfect, no such conclusions can, in general, be drawn from the use of the aorist, which may refer to an action “without specifying whether the action is unique, repeated, ingressive, instantaneous, past, or accomplished.”[13] In particular, the aorist does not imply a “once for all” action, as it has commonly been misinterpreted.[14]
[End excerpt]
Something similar–not syntactically marked, but “spelled out” in Jewish homiletics, is in the Haggadah of the Passover Seder, which says that the Jews were enslaved, and they are still enslaved (until Messiah, etc.).
I actually meant present perfect.
It seems to me that the attempts at clarification in this thread are stronger…
One of the various bits of song that shows up in some Christian services that I’ve been to asserts the following:
The contrast between the first and second lines suggests that they’re not both meant to be past tense. So I’m also throwing in with the old school grammar crowd.
It’s the present perfect. It’s exactly the equivalent of “Christ has risen” in Late Modern English; in Early Modern English, sometimes be was used as the auxiliary verb, depending on the main verb in the sentence.
It’s not passive. It’s not aorist (LOL.) It’s just an entirely normal way of forming the present perfect a few hundred years ago. Something that would be familiar to anyone who has ever read any English literature from that era. It’s a very simple matter of fact.
But, like, posters, continue throwing out random grammatical terms you don’t understand. I’m sure we’ll all benefit from a few dozen other people misusing the term “passive”.
LOL. If you want to nitpick terminology, at least get it right. If you use the term “tense” strictly, English’s tenses are “past” and “non-past”. Any grammar of English will make that clear.
“Any” grammar? You mean maybe like Visser’s An Historical Syntax of the English Language? Or were you perhaps thinking only of instructive material, such as English Grammar Instruction That Works! by Rothstein et al., or Leech’s Meaning and the English Verb, which for about thirty years now has been pretty much the standard textbook on English verb use for foreign learners? Or are you thinking instead of scholarly works focussing specifically on the development English verb tenses, such as Past Tense in English: From OE to PDE (Sangmeister, 2009)? And let’s not forget the scores of academic and popular works by David Crystal; I’m sure he would be grateful to receive your corrections on his very glaring misuse of these very basic grammatical terms.
This is what I was going to say. It was part of the Anglican services I grew up with, and it’s clearly meant to be poetically past/present/future: what happened/what is current/what will happen.
Weirdly enough, on my wikiwalk (note, that’s my only info so am prepared to accept that there are inaccuracies) the “has died/is risen/will come again” construction seems to from an an episcopal English translation of the Roman Missal, which was only produced in 1970.
Wow.
I’m sorry, who are you again?
Also, according to this site, : The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language.
AFAIK the Cambridge Grammar is basically the go-to reference among linguists when it comes to the grammar of English.
LOL.
No.
Neither are passive. The latter is just present tense, perfect aspect.
That’s not passive. It’s simple present, as ‘risen’ is an adjective.
Not in English, it’s not valid. “I have been shot by John” is passive. Even “I have been shot” is passive. “I was shot” can be passive if ‘shot’ is a verb, not an adjective. “I am shot” is not and never will be passive. Even adding an ungrammatical “by John” doesn’t change that.
Maybe I’m misinterpreting what you said, but “I am shot by John” is a valid sentence.
Billy: So I’m walking across the field, and I see Farmer John’s bull. I decide to steal it.
Fred: And what happens?
Billy: I am shot by John.
Seconded. “I am shot by John” can definitely be used as a passive construction in English.
“Let’s go over the script one more time. You’re hit over the head by Mary, John is stabbed with a knife by Charlotte, and here at the end, I am shot by John.”
(The rest of what Chessic said about the passive was right, though.)
Is the following passive?
In Act 3 of the play, Caesar is killed.
Is the following grammatical?
In Act 3 of the play, Caesar is killed by Brutus.
If we replace “Caesar is” with “I am” do they remain passive and grammatical?
If we replace “killed” with “shot” (the past tense of “shoot”) do they remain passive and grammatical?
ETA: Err. Um. I swear the last two posts weren’t there when I started typing.
But we have
a. Cereal is eaten for breakfast.
b. John is taken, so you better stay away from my man.