My question could seem to be very simple, but the reasons why I ask it connect with the understanding of fundamental principles of the construction of the English language. That’s why my question is aimed at native English speakers. I would like to know their point of view, not from the position of grammar but how they understand this aspect of the language. So, my question is connected with the perfect verb form. In grammar books it is said that this verb form is made with “have” + “past participle” (for example: I have broken my phone). They also add that the verb “have” in this case loses its own semantic meaning and is used for showing time and voice, and that the participle gives the semantic meaning of the action.
But I wonder if “have” to native speakers not only shows time and voice but plays the role of a verb that expresses state, like in old English where to make the perfect verb form “be” is used instead of “have” - for example “autumn is come” (in this example verb expresses state and action at the same time). So, my question is - for native speakers is the perfect form understood initially as a finished action (using the perfect form, the speaker means result of action (or its connection with the present and so on, but in general it is the action)) or is the perfect form understood initially as indicating state? (in this example – “autumn is come” we see that this perfect form of old English expresses state, not action)? How is it for native speakers in modern English?