Mark P. Line wrote: "That said, I think it's [marking tense on the noun is] an *awesome* idea for a conlang. It's different enough from the way natlangs work to be intriguing, while not so different that it would prevent usage (unlike, say, unrestricted center embedding). Lots of natlangs have clause-level markers on nouns, after all -- but they tend to be involved with valence assignment and/or pragmatic functions that are more-or-less intimately tied up with the noun being marked." Jim G. wrote: When I read this, the first thing that came to my mind was a system in which vowel-alternation was used to mark proximate vs. remote AND past, present, and future. In this nonce-language, assume that all the vowels are syllabic: v-dors (dog) -a- proximate -i- remote -u- past -o- present -e- future vaudors this-dog-in-the-past vaodors this-dog-in-the-present vaedors this-dog-in-the-future viudors that-dog-in-the-past viodors that-dog-in-the-present viedors that-dog-in-the-future Yes, I'm assuming that only nouns or pronouns would carry past, present, or future markers. I threw proximate vs. remote into the mix because, to me, it seemed pleasing and "natural" in a very broad esthetic sense to pair information about location in time relative to the moment of the utterance with information about the literal or figurative spatial relationships that the referents of the nouns have to the speaker. I couldn't help picturing imaginary hillbillies saying things like "that then dog" instead of "that there dog." Would the foregoing illustrate tense marking on the nouns? Jim G.