On 20/07/2012 18:50, Daniel Bowman wrote:
> Do the natlangs follow the same form (tense on subject,
> aspect on object, etc)?

I am not aware of any.

> 2012/7/20 John Erickson <[log in to unmask]>
>> I posted about it here before, back when it was still
>> just an idea.

I recall it well    :)

>> In fact, the discussion that followed really helped me
>> refine & improve the idea, so big thanks to the folks
>> here.

You're welcome! That's what the list is for - despite the
many off-topic threads   ;)

You certainly seem to be developing an interesting and
original system.

>> Apparently there's a few natlangs that tense mark
>> nouns too. It's just rare.

Uncommon - not sure about the number of languages that do so.

On 20/07/2012 19:23, John Erickson wrote:
> I don't think so. This particular pattern is my own
> invention (as far as I know).

I believe you are correct.  For example, I know of no
natlangs where nouns may show aspect.

> I think the natlangs that tense mark nouns mark all the
> nouns in a sentence the same (all past for past tense,
> etc.),

No, no - never come across that. AFAIK languages that do
show tense on nouns mark the nouns as present or future
relative to the discourse of the sentence, i.e. independent
of whatever tense the verb is and of any other noun in the
sentence; for example in Guaran:
   _his former house_

   _his future work_

But in Siriono (a Tup-Guran language in Bolivia) we do
find the subject noun taking over the job the verb usually
does, i.e. marking the tense of the whole clause, which is
what the subject noun does in John's FairyLang, e.g.
   si-ke    so    i-ra
   woman-PST go  near water-to
   _The woman went near the water._

   Jkv-ke   ke-rv.
   tiger-PST sleep-PERF
   _The tiger slept._

It will be seen in the second example that if aspect is
marked, it is marked on the verb.

Examples above taken from "A LOOK BEYOND ENGLISH: Tense and
Aspect Systems in the Languages of the World" by Karsten

> although I haven't reasearched it.

Might be an idea to do so  ;)

Frustra fit per plura quod potest
fieri per pauciora.
[William of Ockham]