Yes, I was refering to both he tense system limit, and Neal's numbering 

I came up with two future tenses.
She will be eating soon
She will be eating

Near-future tense has to have a time word or phrase aded, like soon, or at 
fifteen hundred hours. I haven't come up with a word for hours, yet. There 
are also thirty-five hours in a day.  Our tense system is quite confusing 
when it gets to the perfect and imperfect tenses. The passive voice is also 
Emerging poet
Pen Name Mellissa Green
Budding novelist
tweet me



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Garth Wallace" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2012 12:52 AM
Subject: Re: a 4 tense system

> On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Hi, I know I need to create a tense system. I don't understand the first
>> tense.
> The tense system that neo gu is descibing is a little unusual. The
> aorist is a kind of past tense.
>> Also, did my screen reader read corectly? It said November 19. Since
>> that tense refers to time, does that mean there are other tenses?
> I'm pretty sure that "Nov19" is the name of neo gu's project. Probably
> some sort of placeholder name.
>> Also,
>> what's the limit on tense numbering?
> If you mean how many tenses a language can have, I'm not sure there's
> any real limit. If you're referring to how he assigned numbers to his
> tenses, like saying that the "present tense" is #3, that just seems to
> be something neo gu has done because he thinks the "traditional" names
> could be misleading.
>> I'm thinking a three-tense system,
>> current, previous, and post. Current:
>> She is eating.
>> Previous:
>> She was eating.
>> Post:
>> She ate. I'm not sure what do do about future tenses. She will be eating.
> You're actually talking about both tense and aspect there. They're
> frequently found together, and they both have to do with time. Here's
> how I'd describe your system:
> "She is eating." We would say that is present tense, progressive (or
> imperfective) aspect.
> "She was eating." We would call that past tense, progressive or
> imperfective aspect.
> "She ate." We would call that past tense, perfective aspect. English
> grammarians call this the "simple past" or preterite.
> Tense proper has to do with when the action described by the verb
> takes place. There are lots of different tense systems in natural
> languages. One very simple one is past/nonpast: verbs inflect only for
> whether the action happened in the past or not: English actually has
> this system (there is no "future tense" inflection of verbs, just a
> construction using the modal verb "will", which is optional). There
> are also, IIRC, languages with future/nonfuture systems, where the
> past and present are lumped together (because they can be definitively
> known), while the future is set apart (because any statement about the
> future can only be speculation). Or past/present/future systems, where
> verbs have distinct inflections for each. Some languages even divide
> up "past" or "future", so verbs may inflect differently for recent
> past and distant past. There are more too. And some languages don't
> have tense at all. There are lots of options.
> Aspect is harder to describe. It has to do with how you're looking at
> the action in time. The most basic division is between the perfective
> (looking at a single action as a complete unit, as in "She ate cake.")
> and the imperfective (looking at an ongoing action from inside, as in
> "She was eating cake."). The imperfective can be further divided: the
> progressive (a single ongoing action), the iterative (repeating an
> action, "She ate cake after cake"), and the habitual (a state of
> occasionally performing an action, "She ate cake often") are all
> examples of imperfective aspects. Then there is the perfect, which
> describes the state that results from an action: English uses "have"
> for this ("She has eaten the cake."). There are loads more. They
> sometimes get merged in funny ways, too. For example, in English we
> can express habitual aspect with the same verb form as the perfective
> ("She ate cake" can mean that she ate it once in the past, or that
> eating cake is something she used to do). Latin used the same verb
> form for the perfective and the perfect, which is why the names of
> those aspects are confusingly similar.
> So neo gu's tense/aspect system breaks down like this:
> (1) expresses a past action, whether complete or ongoing. In other
> words, it's a simple past tense, unmarked for aspect.
> (2) expresses a present state resulting from a past action. It's a
> present perfect.
> (3) expresses a present action, whether complete or ongoing. It's a
> simple present tense, unmarked for aspect.
> (4) expresses a future action, whether complere or ongoing. It's a
> simple future, unmarked for aspect.
> These are not odd distinctions to make. What's unusual about neo gu's
> system is that either the present perfect or the simple present may be
> "off limits" depending on the verb. I'm not sure I understand the
> conditions, though.