Print

Print


No idea is too bizarre to consider. Indeed, that's all the more reason to
consider them.

How do the nouns behave when they are not subjects? Do they still take the
tense marker when they are objects of verbs or of
prepositions/postpositions?

stevo
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 10:31 PM, Gary Shannon <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> The word order in my 30-day conlang puts the tense marking particle
> immediately before the subject noun phrase or pronoun, and many of the
> sentences I'm translating in the text I'm using have patterns like
> (glossed in English) "Leave for the coast tomorrow will I." and "Told
> me his secret did he."
>
> As I talk to myself in conlang-X, and as my fluency improves, I'm
> finding the natural tendency is to want to form contractions joining
> the tense marker to the noun/pronoun because the same identical pairs
> of tense+pronoun occur over and over, sentence after sentence. Those
> pairs seem to be begging to be fused. Yet it seemed strange to
> effectively mark the pronoun for tense until I recalled examples where
> this is (sort of) done in English. Sentences like "I'll leave
> tomorrow."; "I've seen him before.", attach the tense to the pronoun,
> if only loosely. Now if I take the next step and actually fuse the
> pair into a single word I could legitimately claim that I am
> inflecting the tense marker for person, OR, it seems, I could just as
> legitimately say that I am inflecting the pronoun for tense. The
> situation is less ambiguous for nouns, where the only interpretation
> is that I am inflecting the noun for tense.
>
> What would make one interpretation of that phenomenon more
> "legitimate" than the other? I rather like the idea of inflecting
> nouns and pronouns for tense, not just because it seems a novel thing
> to do, but because it seem like the "natural" thing to do in this
> particular language. It's like those sentences are telling me that
> this is how it "should" be.
>
> Does the phenomenon of inflecting nouns and pronouns for tense exist
> in any natlang? Is it too bizarre to consider? Or would it be an
> evolutionary step worth pursuing?
>
> Thoughts?
>
> --gary
>