Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Really conjugated pre/postpostions?

Expand Messages
  • Remi Villatel
    Really conjugated pre/postpostions? Is it really possible that I invented an unknown grammatical feature? I asked Google what it thinks about conjugated
    Message 1 of 2 , Feb 2, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Really conjugated pre/postpostions?

      Is it really possible that I invented an unknown grammatical feature?

      I asked Google what it thinks about "conjugated prepositions" and I got
      nothing. Celtic languages are apparently the only languages to which the
      term "conjugated prepositions" applies but it has nothing to do with tense
      or time.

      So the question is: Do really conjugated pre/postpositions (with a tense, to
      express time) exist in any natural language?

      Here is what I have in Shaquelingua:

      Tense markings
      +--------+------+---------+------+---------+--------+---------+--------+
      :////////: Dist.: Retrosp.: : : : Retrosp.: Dist. :
      :////////: past : past : Past : Retrosp.: Future : future : future :
      +--------+------+---------+------+---------+--------+---------+--------+
      : Ponct. : -ai- : -ace- : -ei- : -ici- : -oi- : -ocu- : -ui- :
      +--------+------+---------+------+---------+--------+---------+--------+
      : Segm. : -aa- : -age- : -ee- : -ego- : -oo- : -ogu- : -uu- :
      +--------+------+---------+------+---------+--------+---------+--------+

      Time is relative to the moment of speech. If the event of which I am talking
      has already happened or has just begun, it is located in the past. If the
      event has not happened yet, it is located in the future. Nothing exists in
      between the past and the future. The moment of speech is not a point in
      time but a link in between the past and the future, a retrospective present
      if you want.

      The past and the future are divided in two, according to their temporal
      distance or proximity, then each tense is linked with its follower with an
      intermediate tense which describes an event with has begun in this tense
      and continues into its follower: a retrospective tense. This is the same
      phenomenon which links the past and the future to produce the
      retrospective. (I don't use the term "retrospective present", the present
      do not exist in Shaquelingua.)

      There are two ways to describe a fact: either as a process which evolves
      along a segment of time or as a whole, like a point in time of which
      duration is irrelevant. Shaquelingua offers the segmental and the punctual
      forms to express this nuance.

      With the tense markings, I conjugate the radical 'smu' to produce all
      postpositions of time. This tense has nothing to do with the tense of the
      sentence, it is relative to the event to which the postposition applies.
      Here, "before" will be the past of the event, "at" is retrospective
      and "after" is its future. Ponctual and segmental make the difference in
      between "at" and "during" (mostly).

      smai [swa,i] = long before
      smace [swaCe] = before
      smei [swe,i] = just before
      smici [swiCi] = at
      smoi [swo,i] = just after
      smocu [swoCu] = after
      smui [su:,i] = long after

      smaa [swa,a] = during a moment before
      smage [swage] = until/up to
      smee [swe,e] = during a moment just before
      smego [swego] = during
      smoo [swo,o] = during a moment just after
      smogu [swogu] = since/from... on
      smuu [su:,u] = during a moment after

      This is a bit too regular but I'm working on it. And yes, "sm" is [sw], this
      isn't a typo.

      tzemiki'ji smage ! [tse.mwiki:'Zji: swage] (Until the answer!)

      --
      ====================
      Remi Villatel
      maxilys_AT_gmail.com
      ====================
    • Eugene Oh
      I skipped your descriptions and went straight to look at your glosses before going back to the descriptions, and I would say that had the data set existed in a
      Message 2 of 2 , Feb 2, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        I skipped your descriptions and went straight to look at your glosses before
        going back to the descriptions, and I would say that had the data set
        existed in a natlang it would probably have been analysed as a series of
        adverbs with slight variations in their forms marking their recency/anything
        else. Either that, or "smu" would be analysed as a verb with adverbial
        semantics.

        Eugene

        2010/2/2 Remi Villatel <maxilys@...>

        > Really conjugated pre/postpostions?
        >
        > Is it really possible that I invented an unknown grammatical feature?
        >
        > I asked Google what it thinks about "conjugated prepositions" and I got
        > nothing. Celtic languages are apparently the only languages to which the
        > term "conjugated prepositions" applies but it has nothing to do with tense
        > or time.
        >
        > So the question is: Do really conjugated pre/postpositions (with a tense,
        > to
        > express time) exist in any natural language?
        >
        > Here is what I have in Shaquelingua:
        >
        > Tense markings
        > +--------+------+---------+------+---------+--------+---------+--------+
        > :////////: Dist.: Retrosp.: : : : Retrosp.: Dist. :
        > :////////: past : past : Past : Retrosp.: Future : future : future :
        > +--------+------+---------+------+---------+--------+---------+--------+
        > : Ponct. : -ai- : -ace- : -ei- : -ici- : -oi- : -ocu- : -ui- :
        > +--------+------+---------+------+---------+--------+---------+--------+
        > : Segm. : -aa- : -age- : -ee- : -ego- : -oo- : -ogu- : -uu- :
        > +--------+------+---------+------+---------+--------+---------+--------+
        >
        > Time is relative to the moment of speech. If the event of which I am
        > talking
        > has already happened or has just begun, it is located in the past. If the
        > event has not happened yet, it is located in the future. Nothing exists in
        > between the past and the future. The moment of speech is not a point in
        > time but a link in between the past and the future, a retrospective present
        > if you want.
        >
        > The past and the future are divided in two, according to their temporal
        > distance or proximity, then each tense is linked with its follower with an
        > intermediate tense which describes an event with has begun in this tense
        > and continues into its follower: a retrospective tense. This is the same
        > phenomenon which links the past and the future to produce the
        > retrospective. (I don't use the term "retrospective present", the present
        > do not exist in Shaquelingua.)
        >
        > There are two ways to describe a fact: either as a process which evolves
        > along a segment of time or as a whole, like a point in time of which
        > duration is irrelevant. Shaquelingua offers the segmental and the punctual
        > forms to express this nuance.
        >
        > With the tense markings, I conjugate the radical 'smu' to produce all
        > postpositions of time. This tense has nothing to do with the tense of the
        > sentence, it is relative to the event to which the postposition applies.
        > Here, "before" will be the past of the event, "at" is retrospective
        > and "after" is its future. Ponctual and segmental make the difference in
        > between "at" and "during" (mostly).
        >
        > smai [swa,i] = long before
        > smace [swaCe] = before
        > smei [swe,i] = just before
        > smici [swiCi] = at
        > smoi [swo,i] = just after
        > smocu [swoCu] = after
        > smui [su:,i] = long after
        >
        > smaa [swa,a] = during a moment before
        > smage [swage] = until/up to
        > smee [swe,e] = during a moment just before
        > smego [swego] = during
        > smoo [swo,o] = during a moment just after
        > smogu [swogu] = since/from... on
        > smuu [su:,u] = during a moment after
        >
        > This is a bit too regular but I'm working on it. And yes, "sm" is [sw],
        > this
        > isn't a typo.
        >
        > tzemiki'ji smage ! [tse.mwiki:'Zji: swage] (Until the answer!)
        >
        > --
        > ====================
        > Remi Villatel
        > maxilys_AT_gmail.com
        > ====================
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.