Print

Print


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.