There are 6 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: Unusual Tenses
From: R A Brown
1b. Re: Unusual Tenses
From: Padraic Brown
1c. Re: Unusual Tenses
From: R A Brown
1d. Re: Unusual Tenses
From: Padraic Brown
2.1. Re: Prairie Dog Language - no, really.
From: Padraic Brown
2.2. Prairie Dog Language - no, really.
From: Randy Frueh
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: Unusual Tenses
Posted by: "R A Brown" r...@carolandray.plus.com
Date: Sat Jul 13, 2013 8:51 am ((PDT))
On 13/07/2013 12:14, Padraic Brown wrote:
>> From: neo gu
I was beginning to think, from the lack of response, that i
was the only one baffled by this. But it seems Padraic is
also
>> T he current version (Jul05) marks TAM using suffixes.
>> First comes the aspect (stative or aoristic,
>> progressive, habitual, perfect, and prospective), then
>> the mood (imperative, subjunctive, and indicative plus
>> non-finite forms).
OK - so the A and M parts of TAM are being shown separately.
So obviously "tense" is not being used to refer to the
traditional 'tenses' set out in grammar book, e.g. the six
indicative & four subjunctive tenses of Latin.
So I assumed "tense" was being used in the strict linguistic
sense of "[t]he grammatical category which correlates most
directly with distinctions in time" [Trask]. In which case
Latin has only three: past, present, future. But ...
>> If the mood is indicative, the tense follows. There
>> are 5 suffixes in that slot:
>>
>> AT -- absolute time ("now") DT -- definite time
>> ("then")
>
> A question on terminology: I've never heard of these
> terms before, so don't know if they're Real Linguistics
> Terms or not;
Nor have I, tho I have heard of "absolute tense" (time
reference which takes the present moment as its point of
reference). It may be that "absolute time" and "definite
time" are terms used in some school of linguistics, but I am
not aware of it.
> but intuitively speaking, the names themselves seem to
> refer to the same extent of Time. In other words, Now is
> absolute because of its presence, its nuncquity, its
> definiteness -- there can be no other now than Now! While
> Then would seem to refer to any other possible, less
> absolutely defined and more cuandocunquatious time.
'cuandocunquatious' is a mix of Spanish & Latin with an
anglicized termination
[snip]
> It seems that the dichotomy is between a well defined NOW
> and an ill defined ELSEWHEN,
Yep - that's what I understand. Two-way contrasts between
past and non-past are not uncommon (e.g. ancient Greek and
modern English). Less common is a two-way contrast of
future and non-future (e.h.Hua language of New Guinea). But
I've not come across a present and non-present contrast
which is what we seem to have here. Tho it s further
complicated by other so-ca;led 'tense' suffixes.
>> QT -- question time (used in "when" questions)
Yes, this I also find confusing. What is 'Question time',
apart from a program on TV? A when question can be about
any tense reference in the past or the future. We seem to
be introducing a different distinction within non-present
time: interrogative and non-interrogative. The latter has
nothing to do with tense as I understand it.
>> RT -- relative time (used in temporal adjunct clauses)
I assume this means finite verbs in temporal clauses. Tense
will be relative to that of the verb in the main clause. But
it could be past, present of future in relation to that
verb. RT seems to be just marking the verb as having
relative tense without actually specifying the time
reference, i.e. the actual _tense_!
>> CT -- complement time (used in complement clauses).
Again this seems to me just a marker that the clause is a
complement clause, it does not mark out the actual time
reference (i.e. tense) of the verb in relation to the main
verb. Complement clauses also have the added complication
in natlangs that they are often (tho by no means always)
subject to a 'sequence of tense' rule.
Cf.
Lisa said, "I will come to the party."
Lisa said [that] she would come to the party.
> How do these work? You tantalise by defining, but fail to
> show us the goods!
Quite so. Tho there are, to be fair, a few examples.
However, it was not clear to me how this worked.
From what I can see, the third suffix is neither a tense
suffix in the traditional sense nor in the more strictly
linguistic sense. It would seem that the actual tense (i.e.
time) is arrived at by a _combination_ of aspect and these
final suffixes. But the exact details are not clear to me.
===========================================================
On 12/07/2013 22:28, Leonardo Castro wrote:
> In my conlang that is under construction, all these
> suffixes' combinations will be possible by means of
> preffixes, but there will be no right order for them to
> appear and it will be possible to use multiple aspects,
> multiple moods and even multiple tenses in the same
> verb.
...and multiple voices? Just kidding
i can understand multiple aspects; after all both English
and Portuguese may combine perfect and progressive aspect, e.g.
I have been working
Tenho estado trabalhando
Bulgarian has forms that combine perfect and imperfective
and, I believe, other combinations are found.
I can understand multiple tenses, in the strict sense of
'time', if we have relative time. But I don't see how
multiple moods would work.
But all these interesting prefixes can appear in any order?
Eeek! Are you trying to out-Maggel Maggel?
--
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
"language
began with half-musical unanalysed expressions
for individual beings and events."
[Otto Jespersen, Progress in Language, 1895]
Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: Unusual Tenses
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" elemti...@yahoo.com
Date: Sat Jul 13, 2013 3:06 pm ((PDT))
> From: R A Brown <r...@carolandray.plus.com>
>
>
>On 13/07/2013 12:14, Padraic Brown wrote:
>>> From: neo gu
>
>I was beginning to think, from the lack of response, that i
>was the only one baffled by this. But it seems Padraic is
>also
>
>>> T he current version (Jul05) marks TAM using suffixes.
>>> First comes the aspect (stative or aoristic,
>>> progressive, habitual, perfect, and prospective), then
>>> the mood (imperative, subjunctive, and indicative plus
>>> non-finite forms).
>
>OK - so the A and M parts of TAM are being shown separately.
> So obviously "tense" is not being used to refer to the
>traditional 'tenses' set out in grammar book, e.g. the six
>indicative & four subjunctive tenses of Latin.
>
>So I assumed "tense" was being used in the strict linguistic
>sense of "[t]he grammatical category which correlates most
>directly with distinctions in time" [Trask]. In which case
>Latin has only three: past, present, future. But ...
And English, two: past and nonpast. That's how I understood the T
part of TAM anyway.
>
>>> If the mood is indicative, the tense follows. There
>>> are 5 suffixes in that slot:
>>>
>>> AT -- absolute time ("now") DT -- definite time
>>> ("then")
>>
>> A question on terminology: I've never heard of these
>> terms before, so don't know if they're Real Linguistics
>> Terms or not;
>> but intuitively speaking, the names themselves seem to
>> refer to the same extent of Time. In other words, Now is
>> absolute because of its presence, its nuncquity, its
>> definiteness -- there can be no other now than Now! While
>> Then would seem to refer to any other possible, less
>> absolutely defined and more cuandocunquatious time.
>
>'cuandocunquatious' is a mix of Spanish & Latin with an
>anglicized termination
Nuts! And I was looking ríght at A&G to make sure I was spelling
it right. :/ At least I spelled nuncquity right! ;)))
>> It seems that the dichotomy is between a well defined NOW
>> and an ill defined ELSEWHEN,
>
>Yep - that's what I understand. Two-way contrasts between
>past and non-past are not uncommon (e.g. ancient Greek and
>modern English). Less common is a two-way contrast of
>future and non-future (e.h.Hua language of New Guinea). But
>I've not come across a present and non-present contrast
>which is what we seem to have here. Tho it s further
>complicated by other so-ca;led 'tense' suffixes.
I like the idea of present / nonpresent contrast; I think I've considered
just this contrast for some project or other. Though I think a past /
future contrast (with no present tense at all) might be interesting as well.
The T part of TAM would simply be left unmarked; aspect and mood
would shoulder the load alone.
>>> QT -- question time (used in "when" questions)
>
>Yes, this I also find confusing. What is 'Question time',
>apart from a program on TV?
Oddly enough, this was my first reaction as well! (How I wish we could
inflict our imperious leader with the same -- but that is an entirely different
matter of discussion!)
>> How do these work? You tantalise by defining, but fail to
>> show us the goods!
>
>Quite so. Tho there are, to be fair, a few examples.
>However, it was not clear to me how this worked.
Sure -- but the examples were AT and DT, except for one QT!
>On 12/07/2013 22:28, Leonardo Castro wrote:
>> In my conlang that is under construction, all these
>> suffixes' combinations will be possible by means of
>> preffixes, but there will be no right order for them to
>> appear and it will be possible to use multiple aspects,
>> multiple moods and even multiple tenses in the same
>> verb.
>
>...and multiple voices? Just kidding
>
>i can understand multiple aspects; after all both English
>and Portuguese may combine perfect and progressive aspect, e.g.
>I have been working
>Tenho estado trabalhando
>
>Bulgarian has forms that combine perfect and imperfective
>and, I believe, other combinations are found.
>
>I can understand multiple tenses, in the strict sense of
>'time', if we have relative time. But I don't see how
>multiple moods would work.
Well, WP says that Welsh has an "interrogatory mood" -- perhaps this
mood could be used in conjunction with the indicative or conditional
(e.g.) to show the questioner's perspective on the matter. That is, as an
evidential of sorts. INT + INDIC = straight fact finding question ("Did
John run in the race (or not)?); INT + SUBJ = disbelief regarding data
(*Jòhn* ran in a ráce!? (Now pull the other one!)); INT + COND =
conditional outcome query (Would John really run in a race (if...)?)
I could see combining optative and conditional: I would wish that... or
potential and optative: I would might go...
Also "reduplicated mood markers", like double jussive "I should ought
to do this..."
>But all these interesting prefixes can appear in any order?
>Eeek! Are you trying to out-Maggel Maggel?
Nay! Say it not! Even thìnking such a thing could be attempted risks tearing
asunder the very terrycloth of the universe!!
Padraic
>Ray
Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
1c. Re: Unusual Tenses
Posted by: "R A Brown" r...@carolandray.plus.com
Date: Sat Jul 13, 2013 10:58 pm ((PDT))
On 13/07/2013 23:06, Padraic Brown wrote:
>> From: R A Brown
[snip]
>>
>> I can understand multiple tenses, in the strict sense
>> of 'time', if we have relative time. But I don't see
>> how multiple moods would work.
>
>
> Well, WP says that Welsh has an "interrogatory mood" --
First I've heard of it. Where does WP say this? I've
looked at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colloquial_Welsh_morphology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literary_Welsh_morphology
...and can't find any mention of this strange mood. Also,
of course, don't take everything WP says as true - because
it ain't.
Nor does my copy of "Gramadeg Cymraeg Cyfoes" know any such
_mood_.
Though I see Trask does note interrogative as mood:
{quote}
*interrogative* /ɪntÉ'rÉgÉtɪv/ _n._ or _adj._ The *mood*
category associated with questions. A few languages have
distinctive verbal inflections for this purpose, but the
interrogative mood is more commonly expressed by particles,
by distinctive word order or merely by intonation..
(/quote}
In welsh it's usually expressed by the particle _a_ before
the verb, which causes soft mutation. The particle is
normally omitted in the colloquial language, leaving only
the soft mutation.
The verb "to be" is rather more complicated; but this has
special negative forms as well. there would be IMO just as
much justification to talk about a 'negative mood' as well
an interrogative one.
> perhaps this mood could be used in conjunction with the
> indicative or conditional
Sure - if interrogation is counted as a mood it will indeed
then combine with indicative, conditional, subjunctive,
optative or any other mood you care to have.
On looking up _mood_ in Trask, I find the category is not
the 'simple' indicative, subjunctive, optative, imperative
thing I learnt at school. It's actually quite complicated
and there does not seem to be universal agreement on how
much is covered by the term. In the longish definition
given by Trask, I read;" Of all the widely attested
grammatical categories, mood is perhaps the most elusive;
mood distinctions tend to shade off almost imperceptibly
into expressions of the speaker's attitude and into clearly
pragmatic factors, such as the speaker's perceived
relationship to other people."
He goes on too note that some distinguish between
_epistemic_ and _deontic modalities_, while others propose a
three-way contrast between _illocutionary force_, _status_
and _modality_. there is much more besides.
Having now consulted Trask, which I ought to have done
before I wrote my email yesterday, I can now well see how
Leonardo could combine moods. I should have asked what the
moods are, I guess.
We live and learn.
--
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
"language ⦠began with half-musical unanalysed expressions
for individual beings and events."
[Otto Jespersen, Progress in Language, 1895]
Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
1d. Re: Unusual Tenses
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" elemti...@yahoo.com
Date: Sun Jul 14, 2013 4:54 am ((PDT))
> From: R A Brown <r...@carolandray.plus.com>
>
> On 13/07/2013 23:06, Padraic Brown wrote:
>>> From: R A Brown
> [snip]
>>>
>>> I can understand multiple tenses, in the strict sense
>>> of 'time', if we have relative time. But I don't see
>>> how multiple moods would work.
>>
>>
>> Well, WP says that Welsh has an "interrogatory mood" --
>
> First I've heard of it. Where does WP say this? I've
> looked at:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colloquial_Welsh_morphology
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literary_Welsh_morphology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_mood under Other Moods
> ...and can't find any mention of this strange mood. Also,
> of course, don't take everything WP says as true - because
> it ain't.
Oh, indeed! I'm well aware of the nature of WP and how it's compiled and
how its articles evolve (having done some work on a couple articles). It
really wouldn't be terribly difficult to remove the attestation if it's not
kosher...
> Nor does my copy of "Gramadeg Cymraeg Cyfoes" know any such
> _mood_.
>
> Though I see Trask does note interrogative as mood:
> {quote}
> *interrogative* /ɪntÉ'rÉgÉtɪv/ _n._ or _adj._ The *mood*
> category associated with questions. A few languages have
> distinctive verbal inflections for this purpose, but the
> interrogative mood is more commonly expressed by particles,
> by distinctive word order or merely by intonation..
> (/quote}
>
> In welsh it's usually expressed by the particle _a_ before
> the verb, which causes soft mutation. The particle is
> normally omitted in the colloquial language, leaving only
> the soft mutation.
>
> The verb "to be" is rather more complicated; but this has
> special negative forms as well. there would be IMO just as
> much justification to talk about a 'negative mood' as well
> an interrogative one.
Perhaps! Though my point wasn't really to discuss Welsh grammar
(which particular seems to be a nonstarter), just to point out ways
moods còuld be combined to show something novel.
I hadn't really considered combining mood markers before, but
like the much vaunted surdéclinaison, wonderful things can result.
>> perhaps this mood could be used in conjunction with the
>> indicative or conditional
>
> Sure - if interrogation is counted as a mood it will indeed
> then combine with indicative, conditional, subjunctive,
> optative or any other mood you care to have.
>
> On looking up _mood_ in Trask, I find the category is not
> the 'simple' indicative, subjunctive, optative, imperative
> thing I learnt at school. It's actually quite complicated
> and there does not seem to be universal agreement on how
> much is covered by the term. In the longish definition
> given by Trask, I read;" Of all the widely attested
> grammatical categories, mood is perhaps the most elusive;
> mood distinctions tend to shade off almost imperceptibly
> into expressions of the speaker's attitude and into clearly
> pragmatic factors, such as the speaker's perceived
> relationship to other people."
Indeed. I recall learning all sorts of "moods" in Latin (jussive e.g.)
and thinking "they have a whole mood just for thát?" The marches
are a bit indistinct and one never quite knows which side of the
border one is on.
> He goes on too note that some distinguish between
> _epistemic_ and _deontic modalities_, while others propose a
> three-way contrast between _illocutionary force_, _status_
> and _modality_. there is much more besides.
>
> Having now consulted Trask, which I ought to have done
> before I wrote my email yesterday, I can now well see how
> Leonardo could combine moods. I should have asked what the
> moods are, I guess.
>
> We live and learn.
Yes indeedy!
> Ray
Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2.1. Re: Prairie Dog Language - no, really.
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" elemti...@yahoo.com
Date: Sat Jul 13, 2013 8:25 pm ((PDT))
> From: BPJ <b...@melroch.se>
>
> 2013-07-13 13:57, Padraic Brown skrev:
>> Oo, I say Dexter me auld chap! I see that sly old fox running along,
>> running as if he's in a race!
>
>> Why, Sinister me bosom friend, I han't seen no "fox" and can scarce imagine
>> such a strange
>> creature!
>
> Is that heraldic Dexter and Sinister or ordinary? ;-)
By the left, me auld compadre! A direct and pertinaceous inquisition as to the
ground state of
leporidic cognition, the underlying and foundational status quo of cottontail
cogitation, why the
very fundamental nature of what it means to be a rabbit, be one oryctolag,
sylvilag or pentilag,
hare, pika or ordinary rabbit. Yes, sir, your line of enquirement is surely a
high exemplar of
that intellectual curiosity, that cogitational ennimblement that marks the
species, and deserves
a fully explicated, properly described and plenteously pontificated response!
Yes indeed, sir!
Sinister and Dexter sir. Right! Well tis all very simple, actually ...
Beg pardon, Sinister me chum, but what áre you going on about now? You're
always pontificating
about some nonsense or other! Over here I can hear some sound, but there's
nothing to be seen
to make such a ruckus!
A ruckus you say, Dexter lad! A rickety-rockety-ruckus? How now good sir! This
gent is
on the very cusp, yes sir the very cusp of a foundational breakthrough in
understanding our
way of mentation, our very mode of cogitatory thinkulation! And, do I dare say
it Dexter me bosom
friend? No lagomorph in this old green world is more qualified to pontificate,
from Pondicherry to
Ponchatrain, from Peru to Pommerania, than I, Sinister of Buckshank-Lopp!
You can say that again, Sinister me buck!
By the left! A capital idea! And I don't mind one whit if I do, to coin a
phrase, toot me own
ruddy horn, for as I say, no lagomorph of any in this old bally world...
Oh, I say! Is that a patch of fresh clover I see over yonder? Sinister, right?
Fresh clover! Mmm.
Sweet clover!
But, but! The question of the century! The ponderment of the age!
No buts! I'm hungry, and we're going over to that clover patch come bunkhouse
or bankers'
britches!
But, but! Once we turn away, I'll fixate on something else and forget who it
was I was talking to!
Ah, Sinister me own dear brother, you'll always have me to talk with!
Bully! You are right about that, Dexter me auld matey! Oo, I say, that ìs a
patch of fresh clover
and no mistake! ...
Padraic
> /bpj
Messages in this topic (42)
________________________________________________________________________
2.2. Prairie Dog Language - no, really.
Posted by: "Randy Frueh" cthefox...@gmail.com
Date: Sat Jul 13, 2013 9:50 pm ((PDT))
And Alice eyes the lop-eared creature and presents the gloves it had sent
her off in search of.
Messages in this topic (42)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/
<*> Your email settings:
Digest Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
conlang-nor...@yahoogroups.com
conlang-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
conlang-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
