LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for CONLANG Archives


CONLANG Archives

CONLANG Archives


CONLANG@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CONLANG Home

CONLANG Home

CONLANG  May 2019, Week 3

CONLANG May 2019, Week 3

Subject:

Re: On the Semantics of Mood

From:

And Rosta <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Constructed Languages List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 15 May 2019 10:10:06 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (78 lines)

On Wed, 15 May 2019 at 09:13, BPJ <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> But present tense is incompatible with perfective aspect, isn't it?
>

Not incompatible qua semantic categories. In English we find no end of
felicitous present tense perfectives, e.g. in narrative present, in plot
summaries,  in live commentary, in performatives ("I hereby name this ship
Hepsibah") (The English Simple Present is unspecified for perfectivity, may
receive perfective or imperfective construal; the same goes for Simple
Past, except to the marginal extent that some speakers take the strong/weak
preterite alternation that exists for certain verbs (e.g. leant/leaned) to
express a perfective/imperfective distinction.) In some of those contexts
where we get present tense perfectives the present tense seems merely
temporally unspecified rather than tied to the deictic now (plot summaries;
arguably the narrative present), but in other contexts (live commentary;
performatives) they seem incontrovertibly semantically present tense.

--And.




>
> Den tis 14 maj 2019 23:28And Rosta <[log in to unmask]> skrev:
>
> > On Tue, 14 May 2019, 17:03 Logan Kearsley, <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 13 May 2019 at 06:25, And Rosta <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, 12 May 2019, 23:28 Logan Kearsley, <[log in to unmask]>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > there are actually *two* different "things" going on: one is
> > > > > this grammaticalization of the world of discourse, while the other
> is
> > > > > grammaticalization of illocutionary force.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thus, on the one hand we have, e.g., deontic moods, epistemic
> moods,
> > > > > subjunctive / irrealis moods, etc., in the "quantifying over
> worlds"
> > > > > category, and declarative, interrogative, imperative, etc. in the
> > > entirely
> > > > > orthogonal category of "grammaticalizing illocutionary force".
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The categories are distinct, but are they really entirely orthogonal?
> > > > Consider imperatives and optatives, for example: they seem to be at
> the
> > > > intersection of the modal and the illocutionary categories. (Or is
> this
> > > in
> > > > fact consistent with entire orthogonality?)
> > >
> > > Well, *I* think so. Yes, there is implicational overlap, but no more
> > > so than there is between other TAMF categories--i.e., optative often
> > > implies future, perfective implies non-present, perfect implies past,
> > > future implies irrealis, etc. Which is why we have the squish-together
> > > category of TAM in the first place!
> > >
> >
> > I think I would say tense and aspect are entirely orthogonal, in that
> each
> > tense is in principle compatible with each aspect; whereas, tense and
> > modality and illocution and modality are not entirely orthogonal: certain
> > illocutions necessarily impose certain modalities on their propositional
> > argument; and deictic future is at least as much a modality as it is a
> > tense. Nevertheless, I was only quibbling, and you are of course right
> that
> > mood comprehends not only modality but also illocution (and
> evidentiality).
> >
> > --And.
> >
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink