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

Re: a 4 tense system

Expand Messages
  • Garth Wallace
    ... Yes, thanks.
    Message 1 of 20 , Dec 1, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 10:48 PM, neo gu <qiihoskeh@...> wrote:
      > On Sat, 1 Dec 2012 21:52:22 -0800, Garth Wallace <gwalla@...> wrote:
      >
      >>On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews
      >><goldyemoran@...> wrote:
      >>> Hi, I know I need to create a tense system. I don't understand the first
      >>> tense.
      >>
      >>The tense system that neo gu is descibing is a little unusual. The
      >>aorist is a kind of past tense.
      >>
      >>> Also, did my screen reader read corectly? It said November 19. Since
      >>> that tense refers to time, does that mean there are other tenses?
      >>
      >>I'm pretty sure that "Nov19" is the name of neo gu's project. Probably
      >>some sort of placeholder name.
      >>
      >>> Also,
      >>> what's the limit on tense numbering?
      >>
      >>If you mean how many tenses a language can have, I'm not sure there's
      >>any real limit. If you're referring to how he assigned numbers to his
      >>tenses, like saying that the "present tense" is #3, that just seems to
      >>be something neo gu has done because he thinks the "traditional" names
      >>could be misleading.
      >>
      >>> I'm thinking a three-tense system,
      >>> current, previous, and post. Current:
      >>> She is eating.
      >>> Previous:
      >>> She was eating.
      >>> Post:
      >>> She ate. I'm not sure what do do about future tenses. She will be eating.
      >>
      >>You're actually talking about both tense and aspect there. They're
      >>frequently found together, and they both have to do with time. Here's
      >>how I'd describe your system:
      >>
      >>"She is eating." We would say that is present tense, progressive (or
      >>imperfective) aspect.
      >>
      >>"She was eating." We would call that past tense, progressive or
      >>imperfective aspect.
      >>
      >>"She ate." We would call that past tense, perfective aspect. English
      >>grammarians call this the "simple past" or preterite.
      >>
      >>Tense proper has to do with when the action described by the verb
      >>takes place. There are lots of different tense systems in natural
      >>languages. One very simple one is past/nonpast: verbs inflect only for
      >>whether the action happened in the past or not: English actually has
      >>this system (there is no "future tense" inflection of verbs, just a
      >>construction using the modal verb "will", which is optional). There
      >>are also, IIRC, languages with future/nonfuture systems, where the
      >>past and present are lumped together (because they can be definitively
      >>known), while the future is set apart (because any statement about the
      >>future can only be speculation). Or past/present/future systems, where
      >>verbs have distinct inflections for each. Some languages even divide
      >>up "past" or "future", so verbs may inflect differently for recent
      >>past and distant past. There are more too. And some languages don't
      >>have tense at all. There are lots of options.
      >>
      >>Aspect is harder to describe. It has to do with how you're looking at
      >>the action in time. The most basic division is between the perfective
      >>(looking at a single action as a complete unit, as in "She ate cake.")
      >>and the imperfective (looking at an ongoing action from inside, as in
      >>"She was eating cake."). The imperfective can be further divided: the
      >>progressive (a single ongoing action), the iterative (repeating an
      >>action, "She ate cake after cake"), and the habitual (a state of
      >>occasionally performing an action, "She ate cake often") are all
      >>examples of imperfective aspects. Then there is the perfect, which
      >>describes the state that results from an action: English uses "have"
      >>for this ("She has eaten the cake."). There are loads more. They
      >>sometimes get merged in funny ways, too. For example, in English we
      >>can express habitual aspect with the same verb form as the perfective
      >>("She ate cake" can mean that she ate it once in the past, or that
      >>eating cake is something she used to do). Latin used the same verb
      >>form for the perfective and the perfect, which is why the names of
      >>those aspects are confusingly similar.
      >>
      >>So neo gu's tense/aspect system breaks down like this:
      >>
      >>(1) expresses a past action, whether complete or ongoing. In other
      >>words, it's a simple past tense, unmarked for aspect.
      >>(2) expresses a present state resulting from a past action. It's a
      >>present perfect.
      >>(3) expresses a present action, whether complete or ongoing. It's a
      >>simple present tense, unmarked for aspect.
      >>(4) expresses a future action, whether complere or ongoing. It's a
      >>simple future, unmarked for aspect.
      >
      > Good explanations, except that complete presents (3) probably don't occur, I think.
      >
      >>These are not odd distinctions to make. What's unusual about neo gu's
      >>system is that either the present perfect or the simple present may be
      >>"off limits" depending on the verb. I'm not sure I understand the
      >>conditions, though.
      >
      > It depends not on the verb so much, but on what aspect is intended (although there are verbs such as "see" that I'm not sure about). Where there's no resulting state (such as when the action's incomplete), the perfect can't be used and where there's no implied transition into the state, the present can't be used. For example:
      >
      > "It is hot" expresses only the state of being hot, not how it got there, so (2) is used, not (3).
      > In "He is looking for a car", the resulting state isn't known, so (3) is used, not (2).
      >
      > Is that clearer?

      Yes, thanks.
    • Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews
      What do the numbers mean? I m confused. I just revised my tense list. I ll look up tense systems, and post something to the list. It will also go in the
      Message 2 of 20 , Dec 1, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        What do the numbers mean? I'm confused.

        I just revised my tense list. I'll look up tense systems, and post something
        to the list. It will also go in the appendix.

        Why is the system called November 19? Since I'm working on a description of
        my Conlang, do you have a description of the language, with historical info,
        and vocabulary with translated sentences?


        Emerging poet
        Pen Name Mellissa Green
        Budding novelist
        tweet me



        GreenNovelist

        blog


        www.theworldofyemora.wordpress.com


        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "neo gu" <qiihoskeh@...>
        To: <CONLANG@...>
        Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2012 1:48 AM
        Subject: Re: a 4 tense system


        On Sat, 1 Dec 2012 21:52:22 -0800, Garth Wallace <gwalla@...> wrote:

        >On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews
        ><goldyemoran@...> wrote:
        >> Hi, I know I need to create a tense system. I don't understand the first
        >> tense.
        >
        >The tense system that neo gu is descibing is a little unusual. The
        >aorist is a kind of past tense.
        >
        >> Also, did my screen reader read corectly? It said November 19. Since
        >> that tense refers to time, does that mean there are other tenses?
        >
        >I'm pretty sure that "Nov19" is the name of neo gu's project. Probably
        >some sort of placeholder name.
        >
        >> Also,
        >> what's the limit on tense numbering?
        >
        >If you mean how many tenses a language can have, I'm not sure there's
        >any real limit. If you're referring to how he assigned numbers to his
        >tenses, like saying that the "present tense" is #3, that just seems to
        >be something neo gu has done because he thinks the "traditional" names
        >could be misleading.
        >
        >> I'm thinking a three-tense system,
        >> current, previous, and post. Current:
        >> She is eating.
        >> Previous:
        >> She was eating.
        >> Post:
        >> She ate. I'm not sure what do do about future tenses. She will be eating.
        >
        >You're actually talking about both tense and aspect there. They're
        >frequently found together, and they both have to do with time. Here's
        >how I'd describe your system:
        >
        >"She is eating." We would say that is present tense, progressive (or
        >imperfective) aspect.
        >
        >"She was eating." We would call that past tense, progressive or
        >imperfective aspect.
        >
        >"She ate." We would call that past tense, perfective aspect. English
        >grammarians call this the "simple past" or preterite.
        >
        >Tense proper has to do with when the action described by the verb
        >takes place. There are lots of different tense systems in natural
        >languages. One very simple one is past/nonpast: verbs inflect only for
        >whether the action happened in the past or not: English actually has
        >this system (there is no "future tense" inflection of verbs, just a
        >construction using the modal verb "will", which is optional). There
        >are also, IIRC, languages with future/nonfuture systems, where the
        >past and present are lumped together (because they can be definitively
        >known), while the future is set apart (because any statement about the
        >future can only be speculation). Or past/present/future systems, where
        >verbs have distinct inflections for each. Some languages even divide
        >up "past" or "future", so verbs may inflect differently for recent
        >past and distant past. There are more too. And some languages don't
        >have tense at all. There are lots of options.
        >
        >Aspect is harder to describe. It has to do with how you're looking at
        >the action in time. The most basic division is between the perfective
        >(looking at a single action as a complete unit, as in "She ate cake.")
        >and the imperfective (looking at an ongoing action from inside, as in
        >"She was eating cake."). The imperfective can be further divided: the
        >progressive (a single ongoing action), the iterative (repeating an
        >action, "She ate cake after cake"), and the habitual (a state of
        >occasionally performing an action, "She ate cake often") are all
        >examples of imperfective aspects. Then there is the perfect, which
        >describes the state that results from an action: English uses "have"
        >for this ("She has eaten the cake."). There are loads more. They
        >sometimes get merged in funny ways, too. For example, in English we
        >can express habitual aspect with the same verb form as the perfective
        >("She ate cake" can mean that she ate it once in the past, or that
        >eating cake is something she used to do). Latin used the same verb
        >form for the perfective and the perfect, which is why the names of
        >those aspects are confusingly similar.
        >
        >So neo gu's tense/aspect system breaks down like this:
        >
        >(1) expresses a past action, whether complete or ongoing. In other
        >words, it's a simple past tense, unmarked for aspect.
        >(2) expresses a present state resulting from a past action. It's a
        >present perfect.
        >(3) expresses a present action, whether complete or ongoing. It's a
        >simple present tense, unmarked for aspect.
        >(4) expresses a future action, whether complere or ongoing. It's a
        >simple future, unmarked for aspect.

        Good explanations, except that complete presents (3) probably don't occur, I
        think.

        >These are not odd distinctions to make. What's unusual about neo gu's
        >system is that either the present perfect or the simple present may be
        >"off limits" depending on the verb. I'm not sure I understand the
        >conditions, though.

        It depends not on the verb so much, but on what aspect is intended (although
        there are verbs such as "see" that I'm not sure about). Where there's no
        resulting state (such as when the action's incomplete), the perfect can't be
        used and where there's no implied transition into the state, the present
        can't be used. For example:

        "It is hot" expresses only the state of being hot, not how it got there, so
        (2) is used, not (3).
        In "He is looking for a car", the resulting state isn't known, so (3) is
        used, not (2).

        Is that clearer?
      • R A Brown
        ... neo gu s _aorist_ is a catch all for any past tense (assuming that his perfect is actually a present perfect). That s one of the four meanings of
        Message 3 of 20 , Dec 2, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          On 02/12/2012 05:52, Garth Wallace wrote:
          > On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Nicole Valicia
          > Thompson-Andrews <goldyemoran@...> wrote:
          >> Hi, I know I need to create a tense system. I don't
          >> understand the first tense.
          >
          > The tense system that neo gu is descibing is a little
          > unusual. The aorist is a kind of past tense.

          neo gu's _aorist_ is a catch all for any past tense
          (assuming that his 'perfect' is actually a present perfect).
          That's one of the four meanings of _aorist_ given by Trask
          in "A Dictionary of Grammatical Terms in Linguistics.". thus:

          {quote}
          1. A verb form marked for past tense but unmarked for aspect.
          2. A verb form marked for both past tense and perfective aspect.
          3. A verb form marked for perfective tense.
          4. A conventional label used in a highly variable manner
          among specialists in languages to denote some particular
          verb form or set of verb forms.

          In other words, _aorist_ can mean whatever you like, as long
          as it applies to verbs :)

          The term was originally used of ancient Greek and is still
          so used in modern Greek. There it basically has the 3rd of
          Trask's definitions, i.e. "perfective aspect." But when
          used of an indicative tense, it also has Trask's 2nd
          meaning, i.e. the past perfective tense (e.g. I went, he
          sang, it rained etc.).

          As a classicist, I find neo gu's use of _aorist_ to denote
          "it was raining" or "it used to rain" very odd, as those are
          past imperfective uses. I do not understand why his first
          tense is not simply called "past" or, if he preferred,
          "preterite."

          [snip]
          >
          >> Also, what's the limit on tense numbering?
          >
          > If you mean how many tenses a language can have, I'm not
          > sure there's any real limit.

          It depends what you mean by "tense". Unfortunately, this is
          used in two different ways, and not realizing this can (and
          sadly does) cause confusion.

          In purely linguistic terms, "tense" denotes _time_
          distinctions. Some languages, e.g. Chinese, have no tenses;
          others have a simple two tense systems, usually past ~
          non-past (e.g. English), tho a future ~ non-future system is
          occasionally found (e.g. Hua, a language from New Guinea).
          Latin & the Romance languages have a three way tense system:
          past ~ present ~ future.

          But it is possible to extend this by, for example,
          distinguishing near past and remote past, or near future and
          remote future. The New Guinea language _Yimas_ has as many
          as seven tenses (in this strict meaning of tense): four past
          tenses distinguishing varying degrees of remoteness, a
          present, a near future and a remote future. This is
          arguably about as far as a natural language would want to go
          with 'pure' tense.

          BUT ...
          tense is also used in a loose manner to cover the various
          forms that occur in a language which include notions of
          aspect and mood also. For example, Latin has only three
          tenses in the strict, linguistic sense of the word, but text
          book set out ten tenses in this ,loose sense of the word:
          six indicative tenses and four subjunctive ones.

          English has only two tenses in the strict sense of the word
          (past & non-past); but when we learnt English grammar way
          back in the 1950s were were taught 16 tenses!

          Certainly in this secondary, loose sense of the word, so
          many variables can be at play that there probably is, as
          Garth wrote, no real limit.

          > If you're referring to how
          > he assigned numbers to his tenses, like saying that the
          > "present tense" is #3, that just seems to be something
          > neo gu has done because he thinks the "traditional"
          > names could be misleading.

          Certainly his use of _aorist_ could be misleading; but if he
          called his tenses #1...#4 simply _preterite, perfect,
          present, future_ I don't see the problem.

          But his statement "If a verb refers just to an action (such
          as when imperfective), tenses 1, 3, and 4 are used ..." a
          bit confusing. If the verb refers just to the action (or
          situation) then it is perfective; the imperfective aspect is
          concerned with the internal consistency of the action or
          situation. In fact AFAIK his tenses 1 and 4 do not
          distinguish between imperfective & perfective aspect.

          (One mustn't of course confuse perfective aspect and the
          so-called 'perfect aspect' of, for example, his tense 2).

          --
          Ray
          ==================================
          http://www.carolandray.plus.com
          ==================================
          Nid rhy hen neb i ddysgu.
          There's none too old to learn.
          [WELSH PROVERB]
        • Roger Mills
          Hello NIcole-- You might inquire of these people-- http://www.gallaudet.edu/Linguistics/Faculty_-_Staff.html about resources available in Braille or voice
          Message 4 of 20 , Dec 2, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            Hello NIcole-- You might inquire of these people-- http://www.gallaudet.edu/Linguistics/Faculty_-_Staff.html about resources available in Braille or voice recordings. I'm thinking in particular of H. A. Gleason's Introduction to Descriptive Linguistics, first published in 1955 and so a little out of date by modern standards, but it's still the best basic introduction to the field that I know of. Also, on the Gallaudet home page, if you search for "Linguistics" you'll see that they have available a handbook, though I don't know in what format.

            There's certainly no need for you to dive immediately into Chomsky and later writers!! Some of that stuff is completely over my head, and I have a PhD in the field...(smiley).

            Roger Mills



            --- On Sun, 12/2/12, Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews <goldyemoran@...> wrote:

            From: Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews <goldyemoran@...>
            Subject: Re: a 4 tense system
            To: CONLANG@...
            Date: Sunday, December 2, 2012, 2:32 AM

            What do the numbers mean? I'm confused.

            I just revised my tense list. I'll look up tense systems, and post something
            to the list. It will also go in the appendix.

            Why is the system called November 19? Since I'm working on a description of
            my Conlang, do you have a description of the language, with historical info,
            and vocabulary with translated sentences?


            Emerging poet
            Pen Name Mellissa Green
            Budding novelist
            tweet me



            GreenNovelist

            blog


            www.theworldofyemora.wordpress.com


            ----- Original Message -----
            From: "neo gu" <qiihoskeh@...>
            To: <CONLANG@...>
            Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2012 1:48 AM
            Subject: Re: a 4 tense system


            On Sat, 1 Dec 2012 21:52:22 -0800, Garth Wallace <gwalla@...> wrote:

            >On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews
            ><goldyemoran@...> wrote:
            >> Hi, I know I need to create a tense system. I don't understand the first
            >> tense.
            >
            >The tense system that neo gu is descibing is a little unusual. The
            >aorist is a kind of past tense.
            >
            >> Also, did my screen reader read corectly? It said November 19. Since
            >> that tense refers to time, does that mean there are other tenses?
            >
            >I'm pretty sure that "Nov19" is the name of neo gu's project. Probably
            >some sort of placeholder name.
            >
            >> Also,
            >> what's the limit on tense numbering?
            >
            >If you mean how many tenses a language can have, I'm not sure there's
            >any real limit. If you're referring to how he assigned numbers to his
            >tenses, like saying that the "present tense" is #3, that just seems to
            >be something neo gu has done because he thinks the "traditional" names
            >could be misleading.
            >
            >> I'm thinking a three-tense system,
            >> current, previous, and post. Current:
            >> She is eating.
            >> Previous:
            >> She was eating.
            >> Post:
            >> She ate. I'm not sure what do do about future tenses. She will be eating.
            >
            >You're actually talking about both tense and aspect there. They're
            >frequently found together, and they both have to do with time. Here's
            >how I'd describe your system:
            >
            >"She is eating." We would say that is present tense, progressive (or
            >imperfective) aspect.
            >
            >"She was eating." We would call that past tense, progressive or
            >imperfective aspect.
            >
            >"She ate." We would call that past tense, perfective aspect. English
            >grammarians call this the "simple past" or preterite.
            >
            >Tense proper has to do with when the action described by the verb
            >takes place. There are lots of different tense systems in natural
            >languages. One very simple one is past/nonpast: verbs inflect only for
            >whether the action happened in the past or not: English actually has
            >this system (there is no "future tense" inflection of verbs, just a
            >construction using the modal verb "will", which is optional). There
            >are also, IIRC, languages with future/nonfuture systems, where the
            >past and present are lumped together (because they can be definitively
            >known), while the future is set apart (because any statement about the
            >future can only be speculation). Or past/present/future systems, where
            >verbs have distinct inflections for each. Some languages even divide
            >up "past" or "future", so verbs may inflect differently for recent
            >past and distant past. There are more too. And some languages don't
            >have tense at all. There are lots of options.
            >
            >Aspect is harder to describe. It has to do with how you're looking at
            >the action in time. The most basic division is between the perfective
            >(looking at a single action as a complete unit, as in "She ate cake.")
            >and the imperfective (looking at an ongoing action from inside, as in
            >"She was eating cake."). The imperfective can be further divided: the
            >progressive (a single ongoing action), the iterative (repeating an
            >action, "She ate cake after cake"), and the habitual (a state of
            >occasionally performing an action, "She ate cake often") are all
            >examples of imperfective aspects. Then there is the perfect, which
            >describes the state that results from an action: English uses "have"
            >for this ("She has eaten the cake."). There are loads more. They
            >sometimes get merged in funny ways, too. For example, in English we
            >can express habitual aspect with the same verb form as the perfective
            >("She ate cake" can mean that she ate it once in the past, or that
            >eating cake is something she used to do). Latin used the same verb
            >form for the perfective and the perfect, which is why the names of
            >those aspects are confusingly similar.
            >
            >So neo gu's tense/aspect system breaks down like this:
            >
            >(1) expresses a past action, whether complete or ongoing. In other
            >words, it's a simple past tense, unmarked for aspect.
            >(2) expresses a present state resulting from a past action. It's a
            >present perfect.
            >(3) expresses a present action, whether complete or ongoing. It's a
            >simple present tense, unmarked for aspect.
            >(4) expresses a future action, whether complere or ongoing. It's a
            >simple future, unmarked for aspect.

            Good explanations, except that complete presents (3) probably don't occur, I
            think.

            >These are not odd distinctions to make. What's unusual about neo gu's
            >system is that either the present perfect or the simple present may be
            >"off limits" depending on the verb. I'm not sure I understand the
            >conditions, though.

            It depends not on the verb so much, but on what aspect is intended (although
            there are verbs such as "see" that I'm not sure about). Where there's no
            resulting state (such as when the action's incomplete), the perfect can't be
            used and where there's no implied transition into the state, the present
            can't be used. For example:

            "It is hot" expresses only the state of being hot, not how it got there, so
            (2) is used, not (3).
            In "He is looking for a car", the resulting state isn't known, so (3) is
            used, not (2).

            Is that clearer?
          • Adam Walker
            I would advise against that. The Deaf normally find that rather offensive. Deaf people do not use braille. Nichole could be stepping into a hornet s nest if
            Message 5 of 20 , Dec 2, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              I would advise against that. The Deaf normally find that rather
              offensive. Deaf people do not use braille. Nichole could be stepping
              into a hornet's nest if she asks someone at Gallaudet about braille
              resources.

              Adam

              On 12/2/12, Roger Mills <romiltz@...> wrote:
              > Hello NIcole-- You might inquire of these people--
              > http://www.gallaudet.edu/Linguistics/Faculty_-_Staff.html about resources
              > available in Braille or voice recordings. I'm thinking in particular of H.
              > A. Gleason's Introduction to Descriptive Linguistics, first published in
              > 1955 and so a little out of date by modern standards, but it's still the
              > best basic introduction to the field that I know of. Also, on the Gallaudet
              > home page, if you search for "Linguistics" you'll see that they have
              > available a handbook, though I don't know in what format.
              >
              > There's certainly no need for you to dive immediately into Chomsky and later
              > writers!! Some of that stuff is completely over my head, and I have a PhD in
              > the field...(smiley).
              >
              > Roger Mills
              >
              >
              >
              > --- On Sun, 12/2/12, Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews <goldyemoran@...>
              > wrote:
              >
              > From: Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews <goldyemoran@...>
              > Subject: Re: a 4 tense system
              > To: CONLANG@...
              > Date: Sunday, December 2, 2012, 2:32 AM
              >
              > What do the numbers mean? I'm confused.
              >
              > I just revised my tense list. I'll look up tense systems, and post something
              >
              > to the list. It will also go in the appendix.
              >
              > Why is the system called November 19? Since I'm working on a description of
              >
              > my Conlang, do you have a description of the language, with historical info,
              >
              > and vocabulary with translated sentences?
              >
              >
              > Emerging poet
              > Pen Name Mellissa Green
              > Budding novelist
              > tweet me
              >
              >
              >
              > GreenNovelist
              >
              > blog
              >
              >
              > www.theworldofyemora.wordpress.com
              >
              >
              > ----- Original Message -----
              > From: "neo gu" <qiihoskeh@...>
              > To: <CONLANG@...>
              > Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2012 1:48 AM
              > Subject: Re: a 4 tense system
              >
              >
              > On Sat, 1 Dec 2012 21:52:22 -0800, Garth Wallace <gwalla@...> wrote:
              >
              >>On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews
              >><goldyemoran@...> wrote:
              >>> Hi, I know I need to create a tense system. I don't understand the first
              >>> tense.
              >>
              >>The tense system that neo gu is descibing is a little unusual. The
              >>aorist is a kind of past tense.
              >>
              >>> Also, did my screen reader read corectly? It said November 19. Since
              >>> that tense refers to time, does that mean there are other tenses?
              >>
              >>I'm pretty sure that "Nov19" is the name of neo gu's project. Probably
              >>some sort of placeholder name.
              >>
              >>> Also,
              >>> what's the limit on tense numbering?
              >>
              >>If you mean how many tenses a language can have, I'm not sure there's
              >>any real limit. If you're referring to how he assigned numbers to his
              >>tenses, like saying that the "present tense" is #3, that just seems to
              >>be something neo gu has done because he thinks the "traditional" names
              >>could be misleading.
              >>
              >>> I'm thinking a three-tense system,
              >>> current, previous, and post. Current:
              >>> She is eating.
              >>> Previous:
              >>> She was eating.
              >>> Post:
              >>> She ate. I'm not sure what do do about future tenses. She will be
              >>> eating.
              >>
              >>You're actually talking about both tense and aspect there. They're
              >>frequently found together, and they both have to do with time. Here's
              >>how I'd describe your system:
              >>
              >>"She is eating." We would say that is present tense, progressive (or
              >>imperfective) aspect.
              >>
              >>"She was eating." We would call that past tense, progressive or
              >>imperfective aspect.
              >>
              >>"She ate." We would call that past tense, perfective aspect. English
              >>grammarians call this the "simple past" or preterite.
              >>
              >>Tense proper has to do with when the action described by the verb
              >>takes place. There are lots of different tense systems in natural
              >>languages. One very simple one is past/nonpast: verbs inflect only for
              >>whether the action happened in the past or not: English actually has
              >>this system (there is no "future tense" inflection of verbs, just a
              >>construction using the modal verb "will", which is optional). There
              >>are also, IIRC, languages with future/nonfuture systems, where the
              >>past and present are lumped together (because they can be definitively
              >>known), while the future is set apart (because any statement about the
              >>future can only be speculation). Or past/present/future systems, where
              >>verbs have distinct inflections for each. Some languages even divide
              >>up "past" or "future", so verbs may inflect differently for recent
              >>past and distant past. There are more too. And some languages don't
              >>have tense at all. There are lots of options.
              >>
              >>Aspect is harder to describe. It has to do with how you're looking at
              >>the action in time. The most basic division is between the perfective
              >>(looking at a single action as a complete unit, as in "She ate cake.")
              >>and the imperfective (looking at an ongoing action from inside, as in
              >>"She was eating cake."). The imperfective can be further divided: the
              >>progressive (a single ongoing action), the iterative (repeating an
              >>action, "She ate cake after cake"), and the habitual (a state of
              >>occasionally performing an action, "She ate cake often") are all
              >>examples of imperfective aspects. Then there is the perfect, which
              >>describes the state that results from an action: English uses "have"
              >>for this ("She has eaten the cake."). There are loads more. They
              >>sometimes get merged in funny ways, too. For example, in English we
              >>can express habitual aspect with the same verb form as the perfective
              >>("She ate cake" can mean that she ate it once in the past, or that
              >>eating cake is something she used to do). Latin used the same verb
              >>form for the perfective and the perfect, which is why the names of
              >>those aspects are confusingly similar.
              >>
              >>So neo gu's tense/aspect system breaks down like this:
              >>
              >>(1) expresses a past action, whether complete or ongoing. In other
              >>words, it's a simple past tense, unmarked for aspect.
              >>(2) expresses a present state resulting from a past action. It's a
              >>present perfect.
              >>(3) expresses a present action, whether complete or ongoing. It's a
              >>simple present tense, unmarked for aspect.
              >>(4) expresses a future action, whether complere or ongoing. It's a
              >>simple future, unmarked for aspect.
              >
              > Good explanations, except that complete presents (3) probably don't occur, I
              >
              > think.
              >
              >>These are not odd distinctions to make. What's unusual about neo gu's
              >>system is that either the present perfect or the simple present may be
              >>"off limits" depending on the verb. I'm not sure I understand the
              >>conditions, though.
              >
              > It depends not on the verb so much, but on what aspect is intended (although
              >
              > there are verbs such as "see" that I'm not sure about). Where there's no
              > resulting state (such as when the action's incomplete), the perfect can't be
              >
              > used and where there's no implied transition into the state, the present
              > can't be used. For example:
              >
              > "It is hot" expresses only the state of being hot, not how it got there, so
              >
              > (2) is used, not (3).
              > In "He is looking for a car", the resulting state isn't known, so (3) is
              > used, not (2).
              >
              > Is that clearer?
              >
            • Matthew A. Gurevitch
              Next to purely linguistics resources, there are conlang related resources that are auditory or mostly auditory such as Conlangery podcast or the Language
              Message 6 of 20 , Dec 2, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                Next to purely linguistics resources, there are conlang related resources that are auditory or mostly auditory such as Conlangery podcast or the Language Creation Conference talks on the YouTubes. Both are not introductions, but the first two that popped into my head when thinking of conlang related linguistics in a blind-friendly format.

                All my best,
                Matthew Gurevitch







                -----Original Message-----
                From: Adam Walker <carraxan@...>
                To: CONLANG <CONLANG@...>
                Sent: Sun, Dec 2, 2012 11:33 am
                Subject: Re: Linguistics resources


                I would advise against that. The Deaf normally find that rather
                offensive. Deaf people do not use braille. Nichole could be stepping
                into a hornet's nest if she asks someone at Gallaudet about braille
                resources.

                Adam

                On 12/2/12, Roger Mills <romiltz@...> wrote:
                > Hello NIcole-- You might inquire of these people--
                > http://www.gallaudet.edu/Linguistics/Faculty_-_Staff.html about resources
                > available in Braille or voice recordings. I'm thinking in particular of H.
                > A. Gleason's Introduction to Descriptive Linguistics, first published in
                > 1955 and so a little out of date by modern standards, but it's still the
                > best basic introduction to the field that I know of. Also, on the Gallaudet
                > home page, if you search for "Linguistics" you'll see that they have
                > available a handbook, though I don't know in what format.
                >
                > There's certainly no need for you to dive immediately into Chomsky and later
                > writers!! Some of that stuff is completely over my head, and I have a PhD in
                > the field...(smiley).
                >
                > Roger Mills
                >
                >
                >
                > --- On Sun, 12/2/12, Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews <goldyemoran@...>
                > wrote:
                >
                > From: Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews <goldyemoran@...>
                > Subject: Re: a 4 tense system
                > To: CONLANG@...
                > Date: Sunday, December 2, 2012, 2:32 AM
                >
                > What do the numbers mean? I'm confused.
                >
                > I just revised my tense list. I'll look up tense systems, and post something
                >
                > to the list. It will also go in the appendix.
                >
                > Why is the system called November 19? Since I'm working on a description of
                >
                > my Conlang, do you have a description of the language, with historical info,
                >
                > and vocabulary with translated sentences?
                >
                >
                > Emerging poet
                > Pen Name Mellissa Green
                > Budding novelist
                > tweet me
                >
                >
                >
                > GreenNovelist
                >
                > blog
                >
                >
                > www.theworldofyemora.wordpress.com
                >
                >
                > ----- Original Message -----
                > From: "neo gu" <qiihoskeh@...>
                > To: <CONLANG@...>
                > Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2012 1:48 AM
                > Subject: Re: a 4 tense system
                >
                >
                > On Sat, 1 Dec 2012 21:52:22 -0800, Garth Wallace <gwalla@...> wrote:
                >
                >>On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews
                >><goldyemoran@...> wrote:
                >>> Hi, I know I need to create a tense system. I don't understand the first
                >>> tense.
                >>
                >>The tense system that neo gu is descibing is a little unusual. The
                >>aorist is a kind of past tense.
                >>
                >>> Also, did my screen reader read corectly? It said November 19. Since
                >>> that tense refers to time, does that mean there are other tenses?
                >>
                >>I'm pretty sure that "Nov19" is the name of neo gu's project. Probably
                >>some sort of placeholder name.
                >>
                >>> Also,
                >>> what's the limit on tense numbering?
                >>
                >>If you mean how many tenses a language can have, I'm not sure there's
                >>any real limit. If you're referring to how he assigned numbers to his
                >>tenses, like saying that the "present tense" is #3, that just seems to
                >>be something neo gu has done because he thinks the "traditional" names
                >>could be misleading.
                >>
                >>> I'm thinking a three-tense system,
                >>> current, previous, and post. Current:
                >>> She is eating.
                >>> Previous:
                >>> She was eating.
                >>> Post:
                >>> She ate. I'm not sure what do do about future tenses. She will be
                >>> eating.
                >>
                >>You're actually talking about both tense and aspect there. They're
                >>frequently found together, and they both have to do with time. Here's
                >>how I'd describe your system:
                >>
                >>"She is eating." We would say that is present tense, progressive (or
                >>imperfective) aspect.
                >>
                >>"She was eating." We would call that past tense, progressive or
                >>imperfective aspect.
                >>
                >>"She ate." We would call that past tense, perfective aspect. English
                >>grammarians call this the "simple past" or preterite.
                >>
                >>Tense proper has to do with when the action described by the verb
                >>takes place. There are lots of different tense systems in natural
                >>languages. One very simple one is past/nonpast: verbs inflect only for
                >>whether the action happened in the past or not: English actually has
                >>this system (there is no "future tense" inflection of verbs, just a
                >>construction using the modal verb "will", which is optional). There
                >>are also, IIRC, languages with future/nonfuture systems, where the
                >>past and present are lumped together (because they can be definitively
                >>known), while the future is set apart (because any statement about the
                >>future can only be speculation). Or past/present/future systems, where
                >>verbs have distinct inflections for each. Some languages even divide
                >>up "past" or "future", so verbs may inflect differently for recent
                >>past and distant past. There are more too. And some languages don't
                >>have tense at all. There are lots of options.
                >>
                >>Aspect is harder to describe. It has to do with how you're looking at
                >>the action in time. The most basic division is between the perfective
                >>(looking at a single action as a complete unit, as in "She ate cake.")
                >>and the imperfective (looking at an ongoing action from inside, as in
                >>"She was eating cake."). The imperfective can be further divided: the
                >>progressive (a single ongoing action), the iterative (repeating an
                >>action, "She ate cake after cake"), and the habitual (a state of
                >>occasionally performing an action, "She ate cake often") are all
                >>examples of imperfective aspects. Then there is the perfect, which
                >>describes the state that results from an action: English uses "have"
                >>for this ("She has eaten the cake."). There are loads more. They
                >>sometimes get merged in funny ways, too. For example, in English we
                >>can express habitual aspect with the same verb form as the perfective
                >>("She ate cake" can mean that she ate it once in the past, or that
                >>eating cake is something she used to do). Latin used the same verb
                >>form for the perfective and the perfect, which is why the names of
                >>those aspects are confusingly similar.
                >>
                >>So neo gu's tense/aspect system breaks down like this:
                >>
                >>(1) expresses a past action, whether complete or ongoing. In other
                >>words, it's a simple past tense, unmarked for aspect.
                >>(2) expresses a present state resulting from a past action. It's a
                >>present perfect.
                >>(3) expresses a present action, whether complete or ongoing. It's a
                >>simple present tense, unmarked for aspect.
                >>(4) expresses a future action, whether complere or ongoing. It's a
                >>simple future, unmarked for aspect.
                >
                > Good explanations, except that complete presents (3) probably don't occur, I
                >
                > think.
                >
                >>These are not odd distinctions to make. What's unusual about neo gu's
                >>system is that either the present perfect or the simple present may be
                >>"off limits" depending on the verb. I'm not sure I understand the
                >>conditions, though.
                >
                > It depends not on the verb so much, but on what aspect is intended (although
                >
                > there are verbs such as "see" that I'm not sure about). Where there's no
                > resulting state (such as when the action's incomplete), the perfect can't be
                >
                > used and where there's no implied transition into the state, the present
                > can't be used. For example:
                >
                > "It is hot" expresses only the state of being hot, not how it got there, so
                >
                > (2) is used, not (3).
                > In "He is looking for a car", the resulting state isn't known, so (3) is
                > used, not (2).
                >
                > Is that clearer?
                >
              • Roger Mills
                ... I would advise against that. The Deaf normally find that rather offensive. Deaf people do not use braille. Nichole could be stepping into a hornet s nest
                Message 7 of 20 , Dec 2, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- On Sun, 12/2/12, Adam Walker <carraxan@...> wrote:
                  I would advise against that. The Deaf normally find that rather
                  offensive. Deaf people do not use braille. Nichole could be stepping
                  into a hornet's nest if she asks someone at Gallaudet about braille
                  resources.
                  =================================

                  Uh-oh, my mistake...I thought Gallaudet was for the _blind_......

                  Is there any college type institution for the blind?

                  Anyway, Gleason's book, in any format, would be useful to Nicole, I'm sure. It does use IPA from time to time (since you're expected to learn it)-- how would a reader-app handle that?

                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  On 12/2/12, Roger Mills <romiltz@...> wrote:
                  > Hello NIcole-- You might inquire of these people--
                  > http://www.gallaudet.edu/Linguistics/Faculty_-_Staff.html about resources
                  > available in Braille or voice recordings. I'm thinking in particular of H.
                  > A. Gleason's Introduction to Descriptive Linguistics, first published in
                  > 1955 and so a little out of date by modern standards, but it's still the
                  > best basic introduction to the field that I know of. Also, on the Gallaudet
                  > home page, if you search for "Linguistics" you'll see that they have
                  > available a handbook, though I don't know in what format.
                  >
                  > There's certainly no need for you to dive immediately into Chomsky and later
                  > writers!! Some of that stuff is completely over my head, and I have a PhD in
                  > the field...(smiley).
                  >
                  > Roger Mills
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > --- On Sun, 12/2/12, Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews <goldyemoran@...>
                  > wrote:
                  >
                  > From: Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews <goldyemoran@...>
                  > Subject: Re: a 4 tense system
                  > To: CONLANG@...
                  > Date: Sunday, December 2, 2012, 2:32 AM
                  >
                  > What do the numbers mean? I'm confused.
                  >
                  > I just revised my tense list. I'll look up tense systems, and post something
                  >
                  > to the list. It will also go in the appendix.
                  >
                  > Why is the system called November 19? Since I'm working on a description of
                  >
                  > my Conlang, do you have a description of the language, with historical info,
                  >
                  > and vocabulary with translated sentences?
                  >
                  >
                  > Emerging poet
                  > Pen Name Mellissa Green
                  > Budding novelist
                  > tweet me
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > GreenNovelist
                  >
                  > blog
                  >
                  >
                  > www.theworldofyemora.wordpress.com
                  >
                  >
                  > ----- Original Message -----
                  > From: "neo gu" <qiihoskeh@...>
                  > To: <CONLANG@...>
                  > Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2012 1:48 AM
                  > Subject: Re: a 4 tense system
                  >
                  >
                  > On Sat, 1 Dec 2012 21:52:22 -0800, Garth Wallace <gwalla@...> wrote:
                  >
                  >>On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews
                  >><goldyemoran@...> wrote:
                  >>> Hi, I know I need to create a tense system. I don't understand the first
                  >>> tense.
                  >>
                  >>The tense system that neo gu is descibing is a little unusual. The
                  >>aorist is a kind of past tense.
                  >>
                  >>> Also, did my screen reader read corectly? It said November 19. Since
                  >>> that tense refers to time, does that mean there are other tenses?
                  >>
                  >>I'm pretty sure that "Nov19" is the name of neo gu's project. Probably
                  >>some sort of placeholder name.
                  >>
                  >>> Also,
                  >>> what's the limit on tense numbering?
                  >>
                  >>If you mean how many tenses a language can have, I'm not sure there's
                  >>any real limit. If you're referring to how he assigned numbers to his
                  >>tenses, like saying that the "present tense" is #3, that just seems to
                  >>be something neo gu has done because he thinks the "traditional" names
                  >>could be misleading.
                  >>
                  >>> I'm thinking a three-tense system,
                  >>> current, previous, and post. Current:
                  >>> She is eating.
                  >>> Previous:
                  >>> She was eating.
                  >>> Post:
                  >>> She ate. I'm not sure what do do about future tenses. She will be
                  >>> eating.
                  >>
                  >>You're actually talking about both tense and aspect there. They're
                  >>frequently found together, and they both have to do with time. Here's
                  >>how I'd describe your system:
                  >>
                  >>"She is eating." We would say that is present tense, progressive (or
                  >>imperfective) aspect.
                  >>
                  >>"She was eating." We would call that past tense, progressive or
                  >>imperfective aspect.
                  >>
                  >>"She ate." We would call that past tense, perfective aspect. English
                  >>grammarians call this the "simple past" or preterite.
                  >>
                  >>Tense proper has to do with when the action described by the verb
                  >>takes place. There are lots of different tense systems in natural
                  >>languages. One very simple one is past/nonpast: verbs inflect only for
                  >>whether the action happened in the past or not: English actually has
                  >>this system (there is no "future tense" inflection of verbs, just a
                  >>construction using the modal verb "will", which is optional). There
                  >>are also, IIRC, languages with future/nonfuture systems, where the
                  >>past and present are lumped together (because they can be definitively
                  >>known), while the future is set apart (because any statement about the
                  >>future can only be speculation). Or past/present/future systems, where
                  >>verbs have distinct inflections for each. Some languages even divide
                  >>up "past" or "future", so verbs may inflect differently for recent
                  >>past and distant past. There are more too. And some languages don't
                  >>have tense at all. There are lots of options.
                  >>
                  >>Aspect is harder to describe. It has to do with how you're looking at
                  >>the action in time. The most basic division is between the perfective
                  >>(looking at a single action as a complete unit, as in "She ate cake.")
                  >>and the imperfective (looking at an ongoing action from inside, as in
                  >>"She was eating cake."). The imperfective can be further divided: the
                  >>progressive (a single ongoing action), the iterative (repeating an
                  >>action, "She ate cake after cake"), and the habitual (a state of
                  >>occasionally performing an action, "She ate cake often") are all
                  >>examples of imperfective aspects. Then there is the perfect, which
                  >>describes the state that results from an action: English uses "have"
                  >>for this ("She has eaten the cake."). There are loads more. They
                  >>sometimes get merged in funny ways, too. For example, in English we
                  >>can express habitual aspect with the same verb form as the perfective
                  >>("She ate cake" can mean that she ate it once in the past, or that
                  >>eating cake is something she used to do). Latin used the same verb
                  >>form for the perfective and the perfect, which is why the names of
                  >>those aspects are confusingly similar.
                  >>
                  >>So neo gu's tense/aspect system breaks down like this:
                  >>
                  >>(1) expresses a past action, whether complete or ongoing. In other
                  >>words, it's a simple past tense, unmarked for aspect.
                  >>(2) expresses a present state resulting from a past action. It's a
                  >>present perfect.
                  >>(3) expresses a present action, whether complete or ongoing. It's a
                  >>simple present tense, unmarked for aspect.
                  >>(4) expresses a future action, whether complere or ongoing. It's a
                  >>simple future, unmarked for aspect.
                  >
                  > Good explanations, except that complete presents (3) probably don't occur, I
                  >
                  > think.
                  >
                  >>These are not odd distinctions to make. What's unusual about neo gu's
                  >>system is that either the present perfect or the simple present may be
                  >>"off limits" depending on the verb. I'm not sure I understand the
                  >>conditions, though.
                  >
                  > It depends not on the verb so much, but on what aspect is intended (although
                  >
                  > there are verbs such as "see" that I'm not sure about). Where there's no
                  > resulting state (such as when the action's incomplete), the perfect can't be
                  >
                  > used and where there's no implied transition into the state, the present
                  > can't be used. For example:
                  >
                  > "It is hot" expresses only the state of being hot, not how it got there, so
                  >
                  > (2) is used, not (3).
                  > In "He is looking for a car", the resulting state isn't known, so (3) is
                  > used, not (2).
                  >
                  > Is that clearer?
                  >
                • neo gu
                  ... I ll change it to past or maybe preterite. It got named before I knew about the imperfective usage. ... I meant the action as independent of the resulting
                  Message 8 of 20 , Dec 2, 2012
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On Sun, 2 Dec 2012 15:06:05 +0000, R A Brown <ray@...> wrote:

                    >On 02/12/2012 05:52, Garth Wallace wrote:
                    >> On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Nicole Valicia
                    >> Thompson-Andrews <goldyemoran@...> wrote:
                    >>> Hi, I know I need to create a tense system. I don't
                    >>> understand the first tense.
                    >>
                    >> The tense system that neo gu is descibing is a little
                    >> unusual. The aorist is a kind of past tense.
                    >
                    >neo gu's _aorist_ is a catch all for any past tense
                    >(assuming that his 'perfect' is actually a present perfect).
                    > That's one of the four meanings of _aorist_ given by Trask
                    >in "A Dictionary of Grammatical Terms in Linguistics.". thus:
                    >
                    >{quote}
                    >1. A verb form marked for past tense but unmarked for aspect.
                    >2. A verb form marked for both past tense and perfective aspect.
                    >3. A verb form marked for perfective tense.
                    >4. A conventional label used in a highly variable manner
                    >among specialists in languages to denote some particular
                    >verb form or set of verb forms.
                    >
                    >In other words, _aorist_ can mean whatever you like, as long
                    >as it applies to verbs :)
                    >
                    >The term was originally used of ancient Greek and is still
                    >so used in modern Greek. There it basically has the 3rd of
                    >Trask's definitions, i.e. "perfective aspect." But when
                    >used of an indicative tense, it also has Trask's 2nd
                    >meaning, i.e. the past perfective tense (e.g. I went, he
                    >sang, it rained etc.).
                    >
                    >As a classicist, I find neo gu's use of _aorist_ to denote
                    >"it was raining" or "it used to rain" very odd, as those are
                    >past imperfective uses. I do not understand why his first
                    >tense is not simply called "past" or, if he preferred,
                    >"preterite."

                    I'll change it to past or maybe preterite. It got named before I knew about the imperfective usage.

                    >[snip]
                    >>
                    >>> Also, what's the limit on tense numbering?
                    >>
                    >> If you mean how many tenses a language can have, I'm not
                    >> sure there's any real limit.
                    >
                    >It depends what you mean by "tense". Unfortunately, this is
                    >used in two different ways, and not realizing this can (and
                    >sadly does) cause confusion.
                    >
                    >In purely linguistic terms, "tense" denotes _time_
                    >distinctions. Some languages, e.g. Chinese, have no tenses;
                    >others have a simple two tense systems, usually past ~
                    >non-past (e.g. English), tho a future ~ non-future system is
                    >occasionally found (e.g. Hua, a language from New Guinea).
                    >Latin & the Romance languages have a three way tense system:
                    >past ~ present ~ future.
                    >
                    >But it is possible to extend this by, for example,
                    >distinguishing near past and remote past, or near future and
                    >remote future. The New Guinea language _Yimas_ has as many
                    >as seven tenses (in this strict meaning of tense): four past
                    >tenses distinguishing varying degrees of remoteness, a
                    >present, a near future and a remote future. This is
                    >arguably about as far as a natural language would want to go
                    >with 'pure' tense.
                    >
                    >BUT ...
                    >tense is also used in a loose manner to cover the various
                    >forms that occur in a language which include notions of
                    >aspect and mood also. For example, Latin has only three
                    >tenses in the strict, linguistic sense of the word, but text
                    >book set out ten tenses in this ,loose sense of the word:
                    >six indicative tenses and four subjunctive ones.
                    >
                    >English has only two tenses in the strict sense of the word
                    >(past & non-past); but when we learnt English grammar way
                    >back in the 1950s were were taught 16 tenses!
                    >
                    >Certainly in this secondary, loose sense of the word, so
                    >many variables can be at play that there probably is, as
                    >Garth wrote, no real limit.
                    >
                    > > If you're referring to how
                    >> he assigned numbers to his tenses, like saying that the
                    >> "present tense" is #3, that just seems to be something
                    >> neo gu has done because he thinks the "traditional"
                    >> names could be misleading.
                    >
                    >Certainly his use of _aorist_ could be misleading; but if he
                    >called his tenses #1...#4 simply _preterite, perfect,
                    >present, future_ I don't see the problem.
                    >
                    >But his statement "If a verb refers just to an action (such
                    >as when imperfective), tenses 1, 3, and 4 are used ..." a
                    >bit confusing. If the verb refers just to the action (or
                    >situation) then it is perfective; the imperfective aspect is
                    >concerned with the internal consistency of the action or
                    >situation. In fact AFAIK his tenses 1 and 4 do not
                    >distinguish between imperfective & perfective aspect.

                    I meant the action as independent of the resulting state (i.e. non-perfect, which _could_ be imperfective or not). I guess I'll have to keep working on the explanation.

                    >(One mustn't of course confuse perfective aspect and the
                    >so-called 'perfect aspect' of, for example, his tense 2).
                    >
                    >--
                    >Ray
                    >==================================
                    >http://www.carolandray.plus.com
                    >==================================
                    >Nid rhy hen neb i ddysgu.
                    >There's none too old to learn.
                    >[WELSH PROVERB]
                  • R A Brown
                    ... [snip] ... Good. ... OK. [snip] ... Non-perfect could indeed be either perfective or imperfective. We re really dealing with different things. ... I think
                    Message 9 of 20 , Dec 3, 2012
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On 03/12/2012 05:15, neo gu wrote:
                      > On Sun, 2 Dec 2012 15:06:05 +0000, R A Brown wrote:
                      [snip]
                      >>
                      >> As a classicist, I find neo gu's use of _aorist_ to
                      >> denote "it was raining" or "it used to rain" very odd,
                      >> as those are past imperfective uses. I do not
                      >> understand why his first tense is not simply called
                      >> "past" or, if he preferred, "preterite."
                      >
                      > I'll change it to past or maybe preterite.

                      Good.

                      > It got named before I knew about the imperfective usage.

                      OK.

                      [snip]
                      >> But his statement "If a verb refers just to an action
                      >> (such as when imperfective), tenses 1, 3, and 4 are
                      >> used ..." a bit confusing. If the verb refers just to
                      >> the action (or situation) then it is perfective; the
                      >> imperfective aspect is concerned with the internal
                      >> consistency of the action or situation. In fact AFAIK
                      >> his tenses 1 and 4 do not distinguish between
                      >> imperfective & perfective aspect.
                      >
                      > I meant the action as independent of the resulting state
                      > (i.e. non-perfect, which _could_ be imperfective or
                      > not).

                      Non-perfect could indeed be either perfective or
                      imperfective. We're really dealing with different things.

                      > I guess I'll have to keep working on the explanation.

                      I think you've been confusing 'perfect' and 'perfective'.
                      If so, you are not the first to have done, and you certainly
                      will not be last. As Larry Trask notes in "A Dictionary of
                      Grammatical Terms in Linguistics":
                      {quote}
                      It is important not to confuse 'perfect' aspect with the
                      *perfective* aspect; they are entirely distinct, in spite of
                      the unfortunate similarity of their names, which results
                      from the accident that Latin happened to use the same form
                      in both functions.
                      {/quote}

                      Yes, the Latin 'perfect tense' denote _both_ past perfective
                      _and_ present perfect.

                      The two superordinate aspectual categories are:
                      1. _perfective_, which lacks explicit reference to the
                      internal temporal consistency of the situation (i.e. we view
                      the situation as a "black box");
                      2. _imperfective_ which makes explicit reference to the
                      internal structure of the activity expressed by the verb
                      (i.e. we look inside the "black box" to see what's going on).

                      Of course, once we take a peek inside the "black box", we
                      may notice all sorts of things; hence the imperfective
                      aspect has many subordinate aspects, e.g. habitual,
                      continuous, progressive etc, etc.

                      But the so-called 'perfect aspect' is rather different from
                      all these and more than one person on this list has in the
                      past questioned (quite rightly IMO) whether 'perfect' should
                      be classed as an aspect at all.

                      I quote from Bernard Comrie's book "Aspect":
                      {quote}
                      The perfect is rather different from these aspects, since it
                      tells us nothing about the situation itself, but rather
                      relates some state to a preceding situation. ... the perfect
                      indicates the continuing present relevance of a past
                      situation. ... This difference between the perfect and the
                      other aspects has led many linguists to doubt whether the
                      perfect should be considered an aspect at all.
                      {/quote}

                      If you or anyone else has not read Bernard Comrie's book,
                      may I recommend asking Santa to bring you copy? :)

                      Bernard Comrie, "Aspect", CUP. ISBN 0 521 21109 3
                      (hardback), 0 521 29045 7 (paperback)

                      --
                      Ray
                      ==================================
                      http://www.carolandray.plus.com
                      ==================================
                      Nid rhy hen neb i ddysgu.
                      There's none too old to learn.
                      [WELSH PROVERB]
                    • Patrick Dunn
                      I asked one of my friends who happens to be blind and an amateur linguist. He says mostly his girlfriend reads linguistics books to him (my god! That s love!).
                      Message 10 of 20 , Dec 3, 2012
                      • 0 Attachment
                        I asked one of my friends who happens to be blind and an amateur linguist.
                        He says mostly his girlfriend reads linguistics books to him (my god!
                        That's love!). But he pointed out a few resources from Bookshare. One
                        evidently needs to be a member of Bookshare, and I'm not, so I can't
                        comment or recommend it in any way, but anyway, he gave me some links:

                        https://www.bookshare.org/browse/book/94754?returnPath=L3NlYXJjaD9tb2R1bGVOYW1lPXB1YmxpYyZzZWFyY2g9U2VhcmNoJmtleXdvcmQ9bGluZ3Vpc3RpY3M%3D

                        https://www.bookshare.org/browse/book/96420?returnPath=L3NlYXJjaD9tb2R1bGVOYW1lPXB1YmxpYyZvZmZzZXQ9MjUmc2VhcmNoPVNlYXJjaCZrZXl3b3JkPWxpbmd1aXN0aWNz

                        https://www.bookshare.org/browse/book/88857?returnPath=L3NlYXJjaD9tb2R1bGVOYW1lPXB1YmxpYyZvZmZzZXQ9MjUmc2VhcmNoPVNlYXJjaCZrZXl3b3JkPWxpbmd1aXN0aWNz

                        https://www.bookshare.org/browse/book/189755?returnPath=L3NlYXJjaD9tb2R1bGVOYW1lPXB1YmxpYyZvZmZzZXQ9MjUmc2VhcmNoPVNlYXJjaCZrZXl3b3JkPWxpbmd1aXN0aWNz

                        https://www.bookshare.org/browse/book/552197?returnPath=L3NlYXJjaD9tb2R1bGVOYW1lPXB1YmxpYyZzZWFyY2g9U2VhcmNoJm9mZnNldD01MCZrZXl3b3JkPWxpbmd1aXN0aWNz

                        He also suggested resources such as this link:
                        http://www.learningally.org

                        I hope those are helpful.

                        --Patrick


                        On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Roger Mills <romiltz@...> wrote:

                        > --- On Sun, 12/2/12, Adam Walker <carraxan@...> wrote:
                        > I would advise against that. The Deaf normally find that rather
                        > offensive. Deaf people do not use braille. Nichole could be stepping
                        > into a hornet's nest if she asks someone at Gallaudet about braille
                        > resources.
                        > =================================
                        >
                        > Uh-oh, my mistake...I thought Gallaudet was for the _blind_......
                        >
                        > Is there any college type institution for the blind?
                        >
                        > Anyway, Gleason's book, in any format, would be useful to Nicole, I'm
                        > sure. It does use IPA from time to time (since you're expected to learn
                        > it)-- how would a reader-app handle that?
                        >
                        >
                        > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        > On 12/2/12, Roger Mills <romiltz@...> wrote:
                        > > Hello NIcole-- You might inquire of these people--
                        > > http://www.gallaudet.edu/Linguistics/Faculty_-_Staff.html about
                        > resources
                        > > available in Braille or voice recordings. I'm thinking in particular of
                        > H.
                        > > A. Gleason's Introduction to Descriptive Linguistics, first published in
                        > > 1955 and so a little out of date by modern standards, but it's still the
                        > > best basic introduction to the field that I know of. Also, on the
                        > Gallaudet
                        > > home page, if you search for "Linguistics" you'll see that they have
                        > > available a handbook, though I don't know in what format.
                        > >
                        > > There's certainly no need for you to dive immediately into Chomsky and
                        > later
                        > > writers!! Some of that stuff is completely over my head, and I have a
                        > PhD in
                        > > the field...(smiley).
                        > >
                        > > Roger Mills
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > --- On Sun, 12/2/12, Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews <
                        > goldyemoran@...>
                        > > wrote:
                        > >
                        > > From: Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews <goldyemoran@...>
                        > > Subject: Re: a 4 tense system
                        > > To: CONLANG@...
                        > > Date: Sunday, December 2, 2012, 2:32 AM
                        > >
                        > > What do the numbers mean? I'm confused.
                        > >
                        > > I just revised my tense list. I'll look up tense systems, and post
                        > something
                        > >
                        > > to the list. It will also go in the appendix.
                        > >
                        > > Why is the system called November 19? Since I'm working on a description
                        > of
                        > >
                        > > my Conlang, do you have a description of the language, with historical
                        > info,
                        > >
                        > > and vocabulary with translated sentences?
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > Emerging poet
                        > > Pen Name Mellissa Green
                        > > Budding novelist
                        > > tweet me
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > GreenNovelist
                        > >
                        > > blog
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > www.theworldofyemora.wordpress.com
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > ----- Original Message -----
                        > > From: "neo gu" <qiihoskeh@...>
                        > > To: <CONLANG@...>
                        > > Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2012 1:48 AM
                        > > Subject: Re: a 4 tense system
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > On Sat, 1 Dec 2012 21:52:22 -0800, Garth Wallace <gwalla@...>
                        > wrote:
                        > >
                        > >>On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews
                        > >><goldyemoran@...> wrote:
                        > >>> Hi, I know I need to create a tense system. I don't understand the
                        > first
                        > >>> tense.
                        > >>
                        > >>The tense system that neo gu is descibing is a little unusual. The
                        > >>aorist is a kind of past tense.
                        > >>
                        > >>> Also, did my screen reader read corectly? It said November 19. Since
                        > >>> that tense refers to time, does that mean there are other tenses?
                        > >>
                        > >>I'm pretty sure that "Nov19" is the name of neo gu's project. Probably
                        > >>some sort of placeholder name.
                        > >>
                        > >>> Also,
                        > >>> what's the limit on tense numbering?
                        > >>
                        > >>If you mean how many tenses a language can have, I'm not sure there's
                        > >>any real limit. If you're referring to how he assigned numbers to his
                        > >>tenses, like saying that the "present tense" is #3, that just seems to
                        > >>be something neo gu has done because he thinks the "traditional" names
                        > >>could be misleading.
                        > >>
                        > >>> I'm thinking a three-tense system,
                        > >>> current, previous, and post. Current:
                        > >>> She is eating.
                        > >>> Previous:
                        > >>> She was eating.
                        > >>> Post:
                        > >>> She ate. I'm not sure what do do about future tenses. She will be
                        > >>> eating.
                        > >>
                        > >>You're actually talking about both tense and aspect there. They're
                        > >>frequently found together, and they both have to do with time. Here's
                        > >>how I'd describe your system:
                        > >>
                        > >>"She is eating." We would say that is present tense, progressive (or
                        > >>imperfective) aspect.
                        > >>
                        > >>"She was eating." We would call that past tense, progressive or
                        > >>imperfective aspect.
                        > >>
                        > >>"She ate." We would call that past tense, perfective aspect. English
                        > >>grammarians call this the "simple past" or preterite.
                        > >>
                        > >>Tense proper has to do with when the action described by the verb
                        > >>takes place. There are lots of different tense systems in natural
                        > >>languages. One very simple one is past/nonpast: verbs inflect only for
                        > >>whether the action happened in the past or not: English actually has
                        > >>this system (there is no "future tense" inflection of verbs, just a
                        > >>construction using the modal verb "will", which is optional). There
                        > >>are also, IIRC, languages with future/nonfuture systems, where the
                        > >>past and present are lumped together (because they can be definitively
                        > >>known), while the future is set apart (because any statement about the
                        > >>future can only be speculation). Or past/present/future systems, where
                        > >>verbs have distinct inflections for each. Some languages even divide
                        > >>up "past" or "future", so verbs may inflect differently for recent
                        > >>past and distant past. There are more too. And some languages don't
                        > >>have tense at all. There are lots of options.
                        > >>
                        > >>Aspect is harder to describe. It has to do with how you're looking at
                        > >>the action in time. The most basic division is between the perfective
                        > >>(looking at a single action as a complete unit, as in "She ate cake.")
                        > >>and the imperfective (looking at an ongoing action from inside, as in
                        > >>"She was eating cake."). The imperfective can be further divided: the
                        > >>progressive (a single ongoing action), the iterative (repeating an
                        > >>action, "She ate cake after cake"), and the habitual (a state of
                        > >>occasionally performing an action, "She ate cake often") are all
                        > >>examples of imperfective aspects. Then there is the perfect, which
                        > >>describes the state that results from an action: English uses "have"
                        > >>for this ("She has eaten the cake."). There are loads more. They
                        > >>sometimes get merged in funny ways, too. For example, in English we
                        > >>can express habitual aspect with the same verb form as the perfective
                        > >>("She ate cake" can mean that she ate it once in the past, or that
                        > >>eating cake is something she used to do). Latin used the same verb
                        > >>form for the perfective and the perfect, which is why the names of
                        > >>those aspects are confusingly similar.
                        > >>
                        > >>So neo gu's tense/aspect system breaks down like this:
                        > >>
                        > >>(1) expresses a past action, whether complete or ongoing. In other
                        > >>words, it's a simple past tense, unmarked for aspect.
                        > >>(2) expresses a present state resulting from a past action. It's a
                        > >>present perfect.
                        > >>(3) expresses a present action, whether complete or ongoing. It's a
                        > >>simple present tense, unmarked for aspect.
                        > >>(4) expresses a future action, whether complere or ongoing. It's a
                        > >>simple future, unmarked for aspect.
                        > >
                        > > Good explanations, except that complete presents (3) probably don't
                        > occur, I
                        > >
                        > > think.
                        > >
                        > >>These are not odd distinctions to make. What's unusual about neo gu's
                        > >>system is that either the present perfect or the simple present may be
                        > >>"off limits" depending on the verb. I'm not sure I understand the
                        > >>conditions, though.
                        > >
                        > > It depends not on the verb so much, but on what aspect is intended
                        > (although
                        > >
                        > > there are verbs such as "see" that I'm not sure about). Where there's no
                        > > resulting state (such as when the action's incomplete), the perfect
                        > can't be
                        > >
                        > > used and where there's no implied transition into the state, the present
                        > > can't be used. For example:
                        > >
                        > > "It is hot" expresses only the state of being hot, not how it got there,
                        > so
                        > >
                        > > (2) is used, not (3).
                        > > In "He is looking for a car", the resulting state isn't known, so (3) is
                        > > used, not (2).
                        > >
                        > > Is that clearer?
                        > >
                        >



                        --
                        Second Person, a chapbook of poetry by Patrick Dunn, is now available for
                        order from Finishing Line
                        Press<http://www.finishinglinepress.com/NewReleasesandForthcomingTitles.htm>
                        and
                        Amazon<http://www.amazon.com/Second-Person-Patrick-Dunn/dp/1599249065/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1324342341&sr=8-2>.
                      • neo gu
                        ... It s called Nov19 because that s the day I started working on it. I don t know who speaks it yet, so I don t have any historical info, except possibly some
                        Message 11 of 20 , Dec 3, 2012
                        • 0 Attachment
                          On Sun, 2 Dec 2012 02:32:40 -0500, Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews <goldyemoran@...> wrote:
                          >
                          >Why is the system called November 19? Since I'm working on a description of
                          >my Conlang, do you have a description of the language, with historical info,
                          >and vocabulary with translated sentences?

                          It's called Nov19 because that's the day I started working on it. I don't know who speaks it yet, so I don't have any historical info, except possibly some sound changes. Also, I don't have any vocabulary yet or translated sentences.

                          >
                          >Emerging poet
                          >Pen Name Mellissa Green
                          >Budding novelist
                          >tweet me
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >GreenNovelist
                          >
                          >blog
                          >
                          >
                          >www.theworldofyemora.wordpress.com
                          >
                          >
                          >----- Original Message -----
                          >From: "neo gu" <qiihoskeh@...>
                          >To: <CONLANG@...>
                          >Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2012 1:48 AM
                          >Subject: Re: a 4 tense system
                          >
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.