183213Re: Further info on tense marking for nouns
- Oct 1, 2011On 01/10/2011 01:05, Padraic Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 2:38 PM, AdamNO - that is _two_ clauses - two coordinate clauses
> Walker wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 1:25 PM, R A
>> Brown wrote:
>>> ...and I'm still troubled by mixed tenses with scope
>>> over the whole clause ;)
>> That is the weirdest part, to be sure and that's no
>> lie. But I still think that it's exactly because it
>> is unsettling and somehow "wrong" that it is such an
>> attractive idea.
> (: I don't think it's really any different than changing
> from one tense to another or changing the time of the
> phrasal action through other means.
> Is "YESTER-I gamble all my wealth and NOW-I stand broke"
> really that different from "I gambled all my money and I
> am broke"?
connected by _and_. The YESTER- bit extends over the clause
"I gamble all my wealth" and the NOW- bit extends over the
clause "I stand broke."
That is just an example of two nominal tenses whose scope
each extends over its own clause. Clearly there is no
What I find problematic is the notion of mixed tenses with
scope extending over the *same* whole clause.
If in John's "Me-FUTURE make me-PRESENT broke" (or, if you
prefer, "TOMORROW-I make NOW-I broke"), _both_ future time
_and_ present time *extend over the whole clause* then I
have a problem.
1. Mixed tenses where the scope of nominal tense is limited
to the nominal constituents themselves - NO PROBLEM
2. Mixed tenses where the scope of nominal tense extends
over the whole clause _and_ the different tenses occur in
separate clauses (as in your example above) - NO PROBLEM
3. Mixed tenses where the scope of one nominal tense extends
over the whole clause and the scope of other(s) is limited
to the nominal constituent - NO PROBLEM per_se.
4. Mixed tenses where the scope of nominal tense extends
over the whole clause _and_ both occur in the *same* clause
- PROBLEM (FOR ME)
>> The trick is, of course, finding a way to make itsIf that is what you want. I am still not certain that John
>> usage internally consistant so that is is "right"
>> within the system established, no matter how "wrong"
>> it may be in the constraints of human-normal.
was serious about his:
... it would allow you to make fun constructions like,
"Me-PAST make me-PRESENT broke," implying that the bad
financial decisions of your self in the past are negatively
affecting your self in the present, or "Me-FUTURE make
me-PRESENT broke," implying that your current financial
situation is being negatively affected by upcoming financial
I seem to notice the word _fun_ there :)
At best, I think, if they do convey meaning, each sentence
has only _one_ nominal tense extending over the whole
clause; the other nominal tense is limited to the nominal
The me that was in the past [nominal tense limited to "me"]
causes me now to be broke [second nominal tense extends over
the whole clause].
The second sentence seems a little more awkward but,
following John's interpretation, it would seem to work the
same way, i.e.
The me that will be in the future [nominal tense limited to
"me"] causes me to be effectively broke now [second nominal
tense extends over the whole clause].
This appeared to me contrary to John's original idea that
the nominal tense of the _subject_ extends over the whole
>> Perhaps all, or very nearly all, languages on Planet XI'm not so sure. The documents that Adam found clearly show
>> do the sort of thing John was/is proposing, and they
>> find our habbit of marking tense on verbs equally
>> difficult to grock.
> Could be!
that nominal tense in not a non-human feature. I have
already conceding that I was mistaken in limiting nominal
tense solely to the nominal constituent was mistaken.
Nid rhy hen neb i ddysgu.
There's none too old to learn.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>