On Fri, 10 May 2013 16:51:53 -0700, H. S. Teoh <hsteoh@...
>On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 12:54:16PM -0400, neo gu wrote:
>> It occurs to me that in the examples, the Apr28 sentences don't
>> actually indicate past or future. Probably, BEF-O would be added for
>> past time and AFT-O for future time here, but other temporal adverbs
>> could be used.
>In a number of natlangs, "yesterday" and "tomorrow" are sometimes reused
>to mean past or future. My L1 does this to some extent, for example. (Of
>course, context makes it clear which meaning is actually intended.)
>I borrowed this idea in Tatari Faran: _hara_ is an adverb meaning
>"tomorrow", and _nara_ is an adverb meaning "yesterday". They also
>double as future/past tense markers:
> huu sa tapa hara pasanan da bata
> huu sa tapa hara pasanan na bata
> 1SG CVY:MASC walk tomorrow town RCP:MASC FIN
> I'll go to town tomorrow. (Or, I'll go to town (indefinite
> huu sa tapa nara pasanan da bata
> huu sa tapa nara pasanan na bata
> 1SG CVY:MASC walk yesterday town RCP:MASC FIN
> I went to town yesterday. (Or, I went to town (indefinite
>To diambiguate between "tomorrow" and future (and likewise "yesterday"
>and past), TF uses the idioms _baran hara_ (lit. tomorrow morning) to
>mean "tomorrow" and _mubun nara_ (lit. last night) to mean "yesterday".
>(Yes, these paraphrases were st... adapted from my L1. :-P) They are
>used when the speaker wishes to make clear that the precise day was
>meant, not just the generic future/past.
I'll have to remember that the next time I attempt a more naturalistic conlang, maybe adapting it for the protolang.
>A language doesn't always have to map precisely to semantics. :)
But some are supposed to. Also, what semantics is might not always be the same for different languages.