183222Re: Further info on tense marking for nouns
- Oct 1, 2011
> Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 19:25:51 +0100Sorry that I'm a Johnny-come-lately to this one. This seems to tie in to a "THEORY" thread from a week back. It seems that John is simply taking one of the "accidents" (valence, voice, aspect, polarity, tense, mood) normally applied to verbs and glomming it onto a noun. In my case, Géarthnuns does this with polarity (affirmativity/negativity). Back in the early days (read, high school) when I had limited linguistic knowledge under my belt and tried to explain to others the fact that I wasn't actually negating nouns (i.e.: "Douglas-nom/neg pres.-aux indef.art-pl./neg. snake.lip-acc.pl./neg. eat." does not mean "No Douglas eats no snake lips.", it simply means "Douglas doesn't eat snake lips."), people got confused, as did I. In fact I was negating the clause and marking it on the nouns. I have the negativity or affirmativity marked on every noun and adjective in a given clause. To change polarity mid-sentence, requires a relative pronoun or some sort of coordinating or subordinating conjunction.
> From: ray@...
> Subject: Re: Further info on tense marking for nouns
> To: CONLANG@...
> Yes, indeed. Also I've been skimming through the other
> stuff. Two things strike me:
> 1. It's not purely temporal affixes that may be attached to
> nouns in some languages; such suffixes may also indicate
> aspect and/or mood.
> 2. The scope of nominal TAM may be:
> (a) limited to the nominal constituent itself;
> (b) extend over the whole clause.
> I had always assumed nominal scope was limited to (a) above;
> probably because that's how I first came across and, in the
> few languages I've (vaguely) entered with nominal temporal
> inflexions, it appeared to work that way.
> It would appear that I was wrong in thinking nominal TAM was
> always so limited, and that John and Patrick were right in
> that its scope may be found extending over the whole clause.
It's green, not blue => It-nom/aff. pres. green-nom./aff. but blue-nom./neg. be
I assumed the tense thing would work similarly.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>