On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 22:40:59 -0600, Logan Kearsley <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>On 14 August 2015 at 19:36, J S Jones <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> A while back someone made a comment about the tense and aspect system being complicated. In the documentation, I try to explain the usage (a little bit of work is still needed), but not the benefit of doing it that way. The reason is that using different aspect classes for predicates reduces the occurrence of aspect and tense marking. Scalar and other static predicates tend to be used as either relative or absolute presents, so they are present stative when unmarked. Habitual class predicates are usually used for present habitual clauses. Telic class predicates, on the other hand, are aoristic when unmarked so that they can be past tense in an absolute present context and relative present elsewhere. Finally, other dynamic predicates are usually present progressive. As a result, most instances of a predicate don't have to be marked for aspect or tense.
>I have had this starred in my inbox for literally months now, and
>finally got around to giving it another look!
>I actually rather like the tense system. It makes sense in a
>natural-seeming way. It's one of a few bits that make it feel more
>like a potentially-natural exolang, rather than a strict loglang.

Thanks. I'll attempt a reply.

>I may have missed it, but I don't think you explicitly explained
>anywhere that Perfectives + TMP imply "after" (as evidenced in "(4)
>boy=Def eat-Prf Tmp woman=Def dish-P=Def wash-Pst Fin"); it makes
>sense, but makes me wonder what the pragmatic difference is between
>that construction and explicit use of .s (SEQ), and what other
>readings the TMP terminator can have.

The Adjunct Clauses subsection in the Clause Chains chapter has a Temporal Relations table, which I suppose is somewhat cryptic. I need to do more research, if possible, on the pragmatic differences between foreground and background clauses.

>Last time I looked at this, I did not notice the grammaticalization of
>non-referentiality. That's another bit I rather like; I'm playing with
>something similar in Canyonese with a non-referential article. I think
>there's a lot of fun stuff waiting to be discovered there.
>> BTW, there are some things in the grammar that I at least find interesting, if you get through the basic morphosyntax. For example, what's used instead of genitive modifiers.
>Trying to figure that out hurts my head! Having a pre-existing
>headache and sinus infection probably isn't helping, though. I might
>revisit it again later and see if I can't give you any tips for
>clarifying the explanation.
>A couple other notes:
>I spent more time than I should have puzzling over the orthography
>section; I think it would help to change "Each symbol is composed of 3
>components: 1 from each line, representing the octal digits." to say
>" from each row..." instead. I was thinking of the lines that
>make up the glyphs, and was thoroughly confused.

I guess "line" should be "row of table"?

>In Derivational Morphology, the Concatenation section has "Insert math
>here"; I would like to see that math! It is not clear to me exactly
>what "product" or "composition" mean in this case.

I'll need to look it up in the compiler theory textbook, but the idea is

R3 (a, c) = R1 (a, b) x R2 (b, c)

where R1, R2, and R3 are relations.

>I think there might be an error in the explanation of complement
>clauses. It says "A complement clause functions as the patient or
>theme (direct or secondary object) of the matrix clause, which
>references it using the anaphoric localizer Ana ({).", but the
>accompanying examples don't have "Ana" in the gloss, and do have "CC"
>where I would have expected it.

That is an error -- "Ana" was originally "CC", so I need to change the examples.

>Also, I'm a little unclear on how you figure out which arguments are
>which when there's a mixture of full phrases and index clitics.

Where there are 2 arguments, the full phrase matches the non-indexed argument, if that's your question. I would think that the instances where all arguments are phrases would be more difficult. Or is your question about how to know the argument structure of a given predicate? In

child=Def=3C pie=Ind eat-Prf=Tmp fork=Def 3C-wash=Fin 

the main predicate "wash" has a prefixed agent (3C) and a suffixed patient (0).