Firstly, I am not a linguist and will probably use linguistic terminology inappropriately. よろしくお願いします。
What is the difference in meaning between verbs in the perfective aspect (～た), present progressive (～ている), and past progressive (～ていた), specifically verbs that denote a resultative meaning?
Alternatively, what is the difference in meaning between 死んだ{しんだ}、死んでいる、and 死んでいた, and between 来た{きた}、来ている、and 来ていた?
Take the verb 死ぬ (and pretend resurrection is possible).
- In the perfective aspect, which denotes a completed (perfected) action, 死んだ translates simply to "[subject/topic] died, and may or may not still be dead presently", or more simply "died".
- In the (resultative) present progressive, the deadness is still imperfectively ongoing, thus 死んでいる translates to "[subject/topic] died, and is still dead presently", or more simply "is dead".
- In the (resultative) past progressive, 死んでいた means "[subject/topic] died, and was still dead at the time in reference, though may or may not still be dead presently," or maybe "[subject/topic] was dead, though may or may not still be dead presently." More simply "was dead". These attempted understandings almost sound like trying to force the perfect tense in English onto the perfective resultative past progressive meaning in Japanese. How can this error in understanding be rectified?
Please explain the semantic and pragmatic differences between the three forms of the above two verbs (死ぬ、来る), specifically comparing and contrasting the Japanese meanings to the English meanings with linguistic/grammatical evidence supporting said explanations, taking into account the communicative limitations resulting from the fundamental differences in how verbs are positioned relatively in time between the two languages.
