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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.