Print

Print


This is a neat idea.  Let me see if I understand:

You'd have unambiguous statements if you said things like:

I saw you
I see you
I will see you

In this case, your construction would clearly refer to time, and not
location.  Clearly, the event is happening nearby (since it's in the first
person) and in front (unless Dankarans have eyes in the back of their head).

However, how would you distinguish between things like:

She saw him/She sees him [far away]
She sees him now, but she sees him far away. [so the action is occurring far
from the speaker, but it's happening right now]
She will see him/She sees him in front of her.

You mentioned you'd have ways around this.  Would they be location
particles, or something like that?  How would they work?

One possible idea for "sideways time" would be different levels of
possibility, rather than actuality.  So an action occurring "sideways" would
be a possible, not definite, action.

On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 5:18 PM, Mark J. Reed <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> More or less. As I said, it's not a case of the Dankarans intuiting
> the underlying equivalence of space and time; they perceive the
> difference as we do. Its just that their language's metaphorical
> equivalence between them is much more thorough.
>
> My as-yet-unimplemented tense idea is that the "past" would refer to
> events either in the past or physically behind the speaker, while the
> "future" would refer to events in the future or physically in front.
> Possibly with other "tenses" for other directions, which would only
> apply to time in a hypothetical multidimensional sense.
>
> On 7/2/09, Daniel Bowman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > As I recall, there is a somewhat similar construction in Hopi.  I'm not
> sure
> > how reliable my source is, but I remember reading that the tenses for
> space
> > and time were the same...so to say that something happened far in the
> past
> > or far (spatially) from the speaker would use the same, or similar,
> > constructions.  Does anyone know more details about this?  It really
> > intrigued me at the time.
> >
> > If I remember correctly, it seems quite similar to what you've come up
> > with.  So, just to clarify, your tenses refer to space-time as a single
> > substance?
> >
> > Danny
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Mark J. Reed <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> In Okaikiar ("Classic"), there's a general space/time equivalence
> >> theme.  The same construction means "here" and "now", "since" and
> >> "from", etc.
> >>  This isn't some "race of Einsteins" with an intuitive grasp of
> >> spacetime: its just metaphorical extension, like the use of English
> >> "at" and other terms for both space and time.  Theyre aware of the
> >> distinction and have particles to specify spaciness/timiness when
> >> needed to disambiguate.
> >>  What I'm considering is extending this to the verbal morphology.
> >> That is, the verb "tenses" would specify where the action is in space
> >> relative to the speaker.  A few of these could obviate some of the
> >> common separate locatives.  Of course I'll need a way to handle
> >> conflicts ("I'll be right behind you", assuming behind = past).
> >>   Anything like this in any other langs you know of?  Not the full
> >> equivalence, but the use of verbal inflection to indicate position?
> >>
> >> --
> >> Sent from my mobile device
> >>
> >> Mark J. Reed <[log in to unmask]>
> >>
> >
>
> --
> Sent from my mobile device
>
> Mark J. Reed <[log in to unmask]>
>



-- 
Daniel C. Bowman
P.O. Box 298
Lemitar, NM 87823
phone:  575-418-8555