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

Re: Really conjugated pre/postpostions?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 2 , Feb 2, 2010
      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


      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.