Print

Print


On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 9:17 AM, 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.

I don't recall now, but as I said, I had thought that aspect was
shown by the verb, not the noun. Even if aspect is shown by
the noun, it doesn't appear in ány of the examples, including
the mixed time one I snipped. Unless "PAST" is also being used to
indicate aspect(s).

So, I'd still read cat-PAST ... mouse-PAST as simple past
tense with no aspect specified.

> 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]

I see where you're coming from -- but I could just as easily say "My past
self made my present self broke" -- no aspect given.

> "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].

This one doesn't work, because I-PRESENT am still fiscally solvent.
Here I think we'd need a slightly more nuanced range of past and future 
markers: Me-FAR.FUTURE make me-NEAR.FUTURE broke. (And me-PRESENT am
still flush!)

Even there: My far future self will make my near future self broke. No
aspect.

I still say that if you want aspect shown on the noun, then you have to show aspect on the noun! Not just time. I can't infer aspect intended from 
a pure temporal marker. That is why, while I understand your 
interpretation, I don't agree that it's in there.

Me-FAR.FUTURE-(ant.fut.asp) make me-NEAR.FUTURE broke:

My far future self will have made my near future self broke.

> [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?

Then there is a problem, isn't there? When aspect is left unmarked, I
assume that what is being said is purely a matter of relative tense, not
perfective/imperfective/progressive etc aspect.

> 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.

Okay, now you're doing what I think should be done to ensure that
aspect gets shown!


> 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.

Then it simply befalls the crafter of a language that works this way to
define a) what ideas get inflected by the verb and what ideas get
inflected by the noun and b) how the possible combinations work.

Right now we're only guessing. However, I like this idea very much! I
plan on working it over for a conlang of mine, based on the suggestion
that a particularly long lived race might see itself in terms of different
iterations of self that evolve and become different over time.

I've always like the concept of inflecting substantives for traditionally
verbal things like person (you mentioned some Hungarian examples; and I'm
already aware of Celtic preverbs). Though I think I'd prefer to split
what gets conjugated by the noun and verb. Will have to think on it.

> 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.

I think our discussion here highlights several potential issues.

> Ray

Padraic