On 11/12/2010 21:52, Anthony Miles wrote:
> I suppose this is the thread in which to beg for help
> with the nomenclature of Náŋifi Fasúxa moods and
> tenses (determined by adverbial forms). So far (there
> may be others in my Lexique Pro dictionary) I have:
[snip]

> 3. Impersonal Gnomic Aorist 4. Personal Gnomic Aorist 5.
> Perjorative Gnomic Aorist 6. General Gnomic Aorist

Why _aorist_? There's nothing in the examples below that
makes that clear. As I understand it, 'gnomic' (also called
'generic') is the aspectual form which expresses a general
or universal truth, e.g. "rhubarb leaves are poisonous."

As Trask observes: "Very few languages seem to have a
distinctive form form exclusively for expressing gnomic
aspect; most often, as in English, the morphologically
simplest form of the verbs and sentences is used."

But, according to Wikipedia, Swahili's "indefinite tense" is
a specifically gnomic form.

'Gnomic aorist' is merely a label attached to the
_occasional_ use in ancient Greek of its aorist indicative
tense (i.e. past perfective indicative tense) to express a
gnomic idea. One also finds in ancient Greek examples of
the [present] perfect indicative and of the imperfect
indicative (i.e. past imperfective indicative) to express
gnomic idea.

But by far the most common tense used in the ancient
language for such expressions is the _present indicative_
just as in English, i.e. "Rhubarb leaves are poisonous",
"People die in the wasteland."

> Details on each are below (recent changes in the syntax
> do not matter for this question). Any thoughts on
> nomenclature/classification?
>
[snip]
> ==Impersonal Gnomic Aorist==
>
> The Impersonal Gnomic Aorist is used for proverbs about
> moral conduct when the intended addressee (if any) is
> not present. The proper adverb is aŋsipú. Thus:
>
> ípnaxi aŋsipú pínaxa kanafú kánaxi A person would
> die in the wastelands.
>
> ==Personal Gnomic Aorist==
>
> The Personal Gnomic Aorist is similar to the Impersonal,
> but is used when the intended addressee (not necessarily
> the person with whom the speaker is talking) is present.
> Its adverb is antufí. Thus:
>
> ípnaxi antufí pínaxa kanafú kánaxi A person would die in
> the wastelands.

Be aware that this use of 'personal' and 'impersonal' is
_not_ what is generally understood by these terms. An
'impersonal verb' is one which has no grammatical subject.
In both of these examples "a person" is clearly the
grammatical subject.

Also, by definition, the person (or persons) one is speaking
to is the addressee! I assume in the above by "addressee"
you mean the person to whom you intend the truism to apply,
i.e. the person you have in mind by "a
person."

If I've understood this, the first is a gnomic statement
(truism) which implies that the speaker considers no one
whom s/he is directly addressing would contravene to truism, 
while in the second example s/he considers someone present 
would/is likely to deny the truism; i.e.

Rhubarb leaves aŋsipú are poisonous (and I know
you/none of you would be so stupid as to eat them).

Rhubarb leaves antufí are poisonous (and, sadly, there's
someone present who is doubts this and is likely to try them).

If this so, I'm not sure what I'd call these two uses - 
indubitative ~ dubitative ??

> ==Perjorative Gnomic Aorist==
>
> The Perjorative Gnomic Aorist is similar to the
> Personal, but conveys contempt. Its adverb is antunú.
> Thus:
>
> ípnaxi antunú pínaxa kanafú kánaxi A person (you moron!)
> would die in the wastelands.

OK - I think I can go along with _pejorative gnomic_.

> ==General Gnomic Aorist==
>
> The General Gnomic Aorist is similar to the Personal and
> Impersonal Forms, but has no moral implications, merely
> a connotation of "everyone knows this". Its adverb is
> afsuxá.
>
> ípnaxi afsuxá pínaxa kanafú kánaxi A person would die in
> the wastelands.

This last example, i.e. general, is the only that the term
'gnomic' would general be applied to, i.e. something which
is generally or universally held to be true.

Although 'general gnomic' is, in a way, a tautology, I guess
if you're distinguishing different shades of 'gnomicity',
then in that context I guess it's OK.

-- 
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
Frustra fit per plura quod potest
fieri per pauciora.
[William of Ockham]