Print

Print


On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 14:17:42 +0100, R A Brown 
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>On 25/09/2011 13:51, Padraic Brown wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 4:41 AM, R A
>> Brown<[log in to unmask]>  wrote:
>>
>>> An after thought:
>>
>>>>> "Me-FUTURE make me-PRESENT broke," implying that
>>>>> your current financial situation is being
>>>>> negatively affected by upcoming financial
>>>>> obligations.
>>>>
>>>> Just the same idea that, e.g. Latin&  Esperanto
>>>> express by using the present tense and a future
>>>> participle.
>>>
>>> Yep "I am going to become broke [because of my future
>>> obligations] - present predictive.  Once again: - the
>>> _tense_ is shown by the object inflexion; - the
>>> _aspect_ (predictive) is shown by the subject
>>> inflexion.
>>>
>>>
>>> Surely then "The cat-PAST eat the mouse-PAST" should be
>>> past perfect, i.e. The cat _had eaten_ the mouse.
>>
>> I read it as simple past -- both the cat and the mouse
>> are past iterations of self.
>
>So did I first time round - as my first response showed.
>But Johns two examples of "mixed time" that John gave (the
>first of which you have snipped)  with different time
>flexions on the subject and object do seem to me to involve
>aspect as well as tense.
>
>It seems to me that in the examples he gave, the inflexion
>on the subject gives the aspect and that on the object gives
>the tense, i.e.
>"Me-PAST make me-PRESENT broke," =
>me.PERF make me.PRES = I have been made broke [as a result
>of past financial decision]
>
>"Me-FUTURE make me-PRESENT broke," =
>me.PREDICT make m.PRES = I am going to be made broke [as a
>result of upcoming financial obligations].
>
>[snip]
>> hypothetical self. I think for the past perfect to work,
>> you'd just mark the verb accordingly. As I recall, only
>> tense was to be marked on the noun, so:
>
>But John doesn't, does he?
>
>As I see it, if we apply the same logic to "The cat-PAST eat
>the mouse-PAST" we would get:
>cat.PERF eat mouse.PAST = The cat had eaten the mouse.
>
>But, of course, my analysis of "Me-PAST make me-PRESENT
>broke" and "Me-FUTURE make me-PRESENT broke" may be
>incorrect. This is not clear.
>
>In any case, if with these "mixed tense" examples we are
>really getting _aspect and tense_, the question arises how
>we express aspect and tense with _intransitive_ verbs.
>
>On 24/09/2011 17:48, John Erickson wrote:
>[snip]
>> and are there any potential problems anyone can foresee
>> from such a system?
>
>Yes - see my last three emails.
>
>--
>Ray
>==================================
>http://www.carolandray.plus.com
>==================================
>Nid rhy hen neb i ddysgu.
>There's none too old to learn.
>[WELSH PROVERB]

Ray,

Are you interpreting those sentences somewhat like mathematical equations? 
(I'm asking honestly, forgive me, I'm new to the mailing list, I'm not sure how 
people will react to me yet.)

As far as the math goes it seems that you are saying (past subject)+(past 
object)=(past perfective), which would lead to other possible equations in the 
language. However, in my opinion, I viewed it as simply a different location 
for a marker that occurs in most languages. That is, in English we represent 
the past tense by adding -ed to a verb (generally speaking) whereas in John's 
conlang he would add, for example, -ed to the noun. Not changing the 
meaning any just changing the location of the affix. And as far as the subject 
and object carrying the same markers that could just be simple word 
agreement in the sentence, just like the languages that make their words 
agree for negativity (e.g. Spanish using No hay nada to represent the English 
equivalent of There are none, where the verb and the determiner are negated 
in Spanish but the verb in English is positive with a negative determiner) don't 
change the meaning of the sentence they just have different words agree or 
not agree. (I really hope that all made sense.)

Of course, then you have to take into account the mixed tenses, which, now 
that I think about it even more I find myself (present) convincing myself 
(immediate future) that the mixed tenses would add aspect into the mix as 
you suggested (this mixture [present-immediate future] being a form of 
present progressive).

But after hashing out the details wouldn't inflecting nouns for tense be just a 
case of cognitive understanding of the world and cause no real problem of 
miscommunication? (This is not a rhetorical question either.)

Brian