On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 9:42 AM, R A Brown <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> I think confusion primarily arises because the grammar >> of the conlang has not yet been specified. All we are >> doing is throwing ideas around and hashing out our >> interpretation of data that has not even been defined as >> of yet! > > Yes. > >> And of course, it's only us confusing outselves! > > I'm not so sure. I think rather it's making us to define ideas or different > points of view. Hopefully, it will give John ideas to work on. Has certainly given me some ideas to work on! >>> Exactly so. Usually what is called the "past >>> participle" in European languages& conlangs is, in >>> fact, a _perfect_ participle, e.g. La kato estas >>> [pres. indicative] manĝita ['past' part.] la muson = >>> The cat has eaten the mouse. >> >> That begs the question: why must we assume that aspect >> is integrated with the tense marker *in this proposed >> system*? (I.e., not in E-o.) > > Because that's the way I made any sense out of the "mixed > tense" examples. It may they were given with "tongue in > cheek" and in the end John will stick with "same tense" system. Fair enough. > Also, of course, as I've pointed out, intransitive verbs do > not have this facility of having subject & object with > different time inflexions (unless - help! - every noun in a > sentence will have its own time inflexion). I think that quite probably some nouns at least will drop their time inflexions. Perhaps only nouns of primary topicality are temporally marked? A child's list to Father Christmas might have 20 or 30 different toys in it -- but really, only the child would need to be temporally inflected. > One must also query impersonal verbs; they presumably will > have to be given a dummy subject (like 'it' in English, e.g. > it's raining). I would think so. I don't think pronouns (or null subjects) were specifically addressed in the initial examples, but I agree that they will have to be so conjugated. After all, if YESTERDAY-Ray went for a walk in the park, then it stands to reason that you might say to me: "YESTERDAY-I went for a walk in the park". >>> Not so certain. We seem to me to have a present state >>> of affairs which has resulted from a past action (i.e. >>> my poor financial decision in the past). This is surely >>> what the _perfect_ aspect is about, isn't it? >> >> Only because we expect it! > > I don't understand. We -- English speakers -- expect aspect to be an integral part of conjugation. I don't think it *has* to be part of nominal conjugation in a conlang. It certainly could be, though. > Either the perfect aspect does have a > definition or it doesn't. According to Larry Trask (A > Dictionary of Grammatical Terms in Linguistics) the perfect > is a "distinctive *aspect* most typically expressing a state > resulting from an earlier event." No argument there. > He does go on to say that in "English and other languages, > the same form is also used to express other related but > distinct apectual notices", and goes on to give examples of > such from English. > > [snip] >> >> As I understand English verbal conjugation, aspect is >> pretty integral: >> >> I cook = habitual aspect I am cooking = progressive >> aspect I will have cooked = future perfect I will be >> cooking = future progressive I had cooked = past perfect >> >> etc. We don't really separate time and aspect that well. >> > We don't. Exactly my point: you, good English speaker, immediately read aspect into the example (rightly or wrongly is not terribly important at the moment). While I can see the sense of the argument, I only point out an alternative. > It always apparent when my daughter, whose lived > in the USA for the past couple of decades, visits us that > British and US use of the so-called 'past simple' and > 'present perfect' in English do not coincide on the two > sides of the Pond - there is considerable variation. I'd be interested in some examples. > But that's really beside the point. I think it should be > clear that by 'present perfect' I mean a present situation > that has resulted from a past event - in this case, a cat > who has consumed a mouse. No argument there! > There's always a problem with the future - because it's > unknown. It's why some languages have use mood such as > subjunctive to express this idea. Even in English we don't > have a future tense per_se, but use _modal verbs_ such as > _will_ and _shall_. True that. > Ray Padraic -- Qouen loucariam! ica vindere al iscôm pneumam niscam enccanemôn en al icaica anouram an; orimdê eiodipositare al enccanemôn qouem, ica forato itan, meita qouemver etra; etti ica sa laptato al iscôm pneumam. Men dê semoudat al narsas qouis, ica accoreire al iscôm pneumam; etti ica perfere pro al ican per empodoc pro al icaica anouram per.