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

Unusual Tenses

Expand Messages
  • neo gu
    The current version (Jul05) marks TAM using suffixes. First comes the aspect (stative or aoristic, progressive, habitual, perfect, and prospective), then the
    Message 1 of 12 , Jul 11, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      The current version (Jul05) marks TAM using suffixes. First comes the aspect (stative or aoristic, progressive, habitual, perfect, and prospective), then the mood (imperative, subjunctive, and indicative plus non-finite forms). If the mood is indicative, the tense follows. There are 5 suffixes in that slot:

      AT -- absolute time ("now")
      DT -- definite time ("then")
      QT -- question time (used in "when" questions)
      RT -- relative time (used in temporal adjunct clauses)
      CT -- complement time (used in complement clauses)

      These all were originally adverbs that got appended to the verb.

      One thing that's unusual is that AT and DT form a present vs non-present tense system with DT used for both past and future references, depending on context. A past context may be set up by using the perfect + AT as an indefinite past tense; similarly, the prospective + AT can be used as an indefinite future. Or QT may be used. An example:

      'u gyomi kaukc^i ben?
      'u gyomi-0-0 ka-uk-0-c^i ben
      Def cat-S-Acc see-Prf-Fin-AT PQ
      "Have you seen the cat?"

      ku res^ta no ka kauto.
      ku res^ta-0-0 no-0 ka ka-0-u-to
      Def house-S-Acc in-Loc 3ASAcc see-Aor-Fin-DT
      "I saw it in the house."

      ka kaukubo?
      ka ka-uk-u-bo
      3ASAcc see-Prf-Fin-QT
      "When did you see it?"

      Another example:

      ku 'erefante kaasc^i.
      ku 'erefante-0-0 ka-as-0-c^i
      Def elephant-S-Acc see-Pro-Fin-AT
      "I'm going to see the elephant."

      kes^ roda gurakento.
      kes^ roda-0 gurak-en-0-to
      3ASNom beer-Abs drink-Prg-Fin-DT
      "It will be drinking beer."

      Does anyone know of a natlang or conlang using a similar system?
    • Leonardo Castro
      In my conlang that is under construction, all these suffixes combinations will be possible by means of preffixes, but there will be no right order for them to
      Message 2 of 12 , Jul 12, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        In my conlang that is under construction, all these suffixes'
        combinations will be possible by means of preffixes, but there will be
        no right order for them to appear and it will be possible to use
        multiple aspects, multiple moods and even multiple tenses in the same
        verb.

        Até mais!

        Leonardo


        2013/7/11 neo gu <qiihoskeh@...>:
        > The current version (Jul05) marks TAM using suffixes. First comes the aspect (stative or aoristic, progressive, habitual, perfect, and prospective), then the mood (imperative, subjunctive, and indicative plus non-finite forms). If the mood is indicative, the tense follows. There are 5 suffixes in that slot:
        >
        > AT -- absolute time ("now")
        > DT -- definite time ("then")
        > QT -- question time (used in "when" questions)
        > RT -- relative time (used in temporal adjunct clauses)
        > CT -- complement time (used in complement clauses)
        >
        > These all were originally adverbs that got appended to the verb.
        >
        > One thing that's unusual is that AT and DT form a present vs non-present tense system with DT used for both past and future references, depending on context. A past context may be set up by using the perfect + AT as an indefinite past tense; similarly, the prospective + AT can be used as an indefinite future. Or QT may be used. An example:
        >
        > 'u gyomi kaukc^i ben?
        > 'u gyomi-0-0 ka-uk-0-c^i ben
        > Def cat-S-Acc see-Prf-Fin-AT PQ
        > "Have you seen the cat?"
        >
        > ku res^ta no ka kauto.
        > ku res^ta-0-0 no-0 ka ka-0-u-to
        > Def house-S-Acc in-Loc 3ASAcc see-Aor-Fin-DT
        > "I saw it in the house."
        >
        > ka kaukubo?
        > ka ka-uk-u-bo
        > 3ASAcc see-Prf-Fin-QT
        > "When did you see it?"
        >
        > Another example:
        >
        > ku 'erefante kaasc^i.
        > ku 'erefante-0-0 ka-as-0-c^i
        > Def elephant-S-Acc see-Pro-Fin-AT
        > "I'm going to see the elephant."
        >
        > kes^ roda gurakento.
        > kes^ roda-0 gurak-en-0-to
        > 3ASNom beer-Abs drink-Prg-Fin-DT
        > "It will be drinking beer."
        >
        > Does anyone know of a natlang or conlang using a similar system?
      • Padraic Brown
        ... A question on terminology: I ve never heard of these terms before, so don t know if they re Real Linguistics Terms or not; but intuitively speaking, the
        Message 3 of 12 , Jul 13, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          > From: neo gu <qiihoskeh@...>

          >
          >T he current version (Jul05) marks TAM using suffixes. First comes the aspect
          > (stative or aoristic, progressive, habitual, perfect, and prospective), then the
          > mood (imperative, subjunctive, and indicative plus non-finite forms). If the
          > mood is indicative, the tense follows. There are 5 suffixes in that slot:
          >
          > AT -- absolute time ("now")
          > DT -- definite time ("then")

          A question on terminology: I've never heard of these terms before, so don't know if they're
          Real Linguistics Terms or not; but intuitively speaking, the names themselves seem to refer
          to the same extent of Time. In other words, Now is absolute because of its presence, its
          nuncquity, its definiteness -- there can be no other now than Now! While Then would seem
          to refer to any other possible, less absolutely defined and more cuandocunquatious time.

          I'm put in mind of the scene in Space Balls where the gang is standing in front of Mr. Video
          watching themselves at that particular point in the movie...

          When does *this* happen in the movie?
          *Now*. You're looking at now, sir. Everything that's happening now, is happening *Now*.
          What happened to *then*?
          We passed it.
          When?
          Just now! We're at Now now.
          Go back to Then!
          When?
          Now!
          Now?
          Now!
          I can't.
          Why?
          Missed it.
          When?
          Just now.
          When will Then be Now?
          SOON.

          It seems that the dichotomy is between a well defined NOW and an ill defined ELSEWHEN,
          so the use of words that are roughly synonymous could lead to confusion. Or maybe I sojourn
          alone in my confusion!

          > QT -- question time (used in "when" questions)
          > RT -- relative time (used in temporal adjunct clauses)
          > CT -- complement time (used in complement clauses)

          How do these work? You tantalise by defining, but fail to show us the goods!

          Padraic
           
          > These all were originally adverbs that got appended to the verb.
          >
          > One thing that's unusual is that AT and DT form a present vs non-present
          > tense system with DT used for both past and future references, depending on
          > context. A past context may be set up by using the perfect + AT as an indefinite
          > past tense; similarly, the prospective + AT can be used as an indefinite future.
          > Or QT may be used. An example:
          >
          > 'u gyomi kaukc^i ben?
          > 'u  gyomi-0-0  ka-uk-0-c^i  ben
          > Def cat-S-Acc see-Prf-Fin-AT PQ
          > "Have you seen the cat?"
          >
          > ku res^ta no ka kauto.
          > ku  res^ta-0-0  no-0  ka      ka-0-u-to
          > Def house-S-Acc in-Loc 3ASAcc see-Aor-Fin-DT
          > "I saw it in the house."
          >
          > ka kaukubo?
          > ka      ka-uk-u-bo
          > 3ASAcc see-Prf-Fin-QT
          > "When did you see it?"
          >
          > Another example:
          >
          > ku 'erefante kaasc^i.
          > ku 'erefante-0-0    ka-as-0-c^i
          > Def elephant-S-Acc see-Pro-Fin-AT
          > "I'm going to see the elephant."
          >
          > kes^ roda gurakento.
          > kes^  roda-0  gurak-en-0-to
          > 3ASNom beer-Abs drink-Prg-Fin-DT
          > "It will be drinking beer."
          >
          > Does anyone know of a natlang or conlang using a similar system?
          >
        • R A Brown
          ... I was beginning to think, from the lack of response, that i was the only one baffled by this. But it seems Padraic is also ... OK - so the A and M parts
          Message 4 of 12 , Jul 13, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            On 13/07/2013 12:14, Padraic Brown wrote:
            >> From: neo gu

            I was beginning to think, from the lack of response, that i
            was the only one baffled by this. But it seems Padraic is
            also

            >> T he current version (Jul05) marks TAM using suffixes.
            >> First comes the aspect (stative or aoristic,
            >> progressive, habitual, perfect, and prospective), then
            >> the mood (imperative, subjunctive, and indicative plus
            >> non-finite forms).

            OK - so the A and M parts of TAM are being shown separately.
            So obviously "tense" is not being used to refer to the
            traditional 'tenses' set out in grammar book, e.g. the six
            indicative & four subjunctive tenses of Latin.

            So I assumed "tense" was being used in the strict linguistic
            sense of "[t]he grammatical category which correlates most
            directly with distinctions in time" [Trask]. In which case
            Latin has only three: past, present, future. But ...

            >> If the mood is indicative, the tense follows. There
            >> are 5 suffixes in that slot:
            >>
            >> AT -- absolute time ("now") DT -- definite time
            >> ("then")
            >
            > A question on terminology: I've never heard of these
            > terms before, so don't know if they're Real Linguistics
            > Terms or not;

            Nor have I, tho I have heard of "absolute tense" (time
            reference which takes the present moment as its point of
            reference). It may be that "absolute time" and "definite
            time" are terms used in some school of linguistics, but I am
            not aware of it.

            > but intuitively speaking, the names themselves seem to
            > refer to the same extent of Time. In other words, Now is
            > absolute because of its presence, its nuncquity, its
            > definiteness -- there can be no other now than Now! While
            > Then would seem to refer to any other possible, less
            > absolutely defined and more cuandocunquatious time.

            'cuandocunquatious' is a mix of Spanish & Latin with an
            anglicized termination

            [snip]

            > It seems that the dichotomy is between a well defined NOW
            > and an ill defined ELSEWHEN,

            Yep - that's what I understand. Two-way contrasts between
            past and non-past are not uncommon (e.g. ancient Greek and
            modern English). Less common is a two-way contrast of
            future and non-future (e.h.Hua language of New Guinea). But
            I've not come across a present and non-present contrast
            which is what we seem to have here. Tho it s further
            complicated by other so-ca;led 'tense' suffixes.

            >> QT -- question time (used in "when" questions)

            Yes, this I also find confusing. What is 'Question time',
            apart from a program on TV? A when question can be about
            any tense reference in the past or the future. We seem to
            be introducing a different distinction within non-present
            time: interrogative and non-interrogative. The latter has
            nothing to do with tense as I understand it.

            >> RT -- relative time (used in temporal adjunct clauses)

            I assume this means finite verbs in temporal clauses. Tense
            will be relative to that of the verb in the main clause. But
            it could be past, present of future in relation to that
            verb. RT seems to be just marking the verb as having
            relative tense without actually specifying the time
            reference, i.e. the actual _tense_!

            >> CT -- complement time (used in complement clauses).

            Again this seems to me just a marker that the clause is a
            complement clause, it does not mark out the actual time
            reference (i.e. tense) of the verb in relation to the main
            verb. Complement clauses also have the added complication
            in natlangs that they are often (tho by no means always)
            subject to a 'sequence of tense' rule.
            Cf.
            Lisa said, "I will come to the party."
            Lisa said [that] she would come to the party.

            > How do these work? You tantalise by defining, but fail to
            > show us the goods!

            Quite so. Tho there are, to be fair, a few examples.
            However, it was not clear to me how this worked.

            From what I can see, the third suffix is neither a tense
            suffix in the traditional sense nor in the more strictly
            linguistic sense. It would seem that the actual tense (i.e.
            time) is arrived at by a _combination_ of aspect and these
            final suffixes. But the exact details are not clear to me.
            ===========================================================

            On 12/07/2013 22:28, Leonardo Castro wrote:
            > In my conlang that is under construction, all these
            > suffixes' combinations will be possible by means of
            > preffixes, but there will be no right order for them to
            > appear and it will be possible to use multiple aspects,
            > multiple moods and even multiple tenses in the same
            > verb.

            ...and multiple voices? Just kidding

            i can understand multiple aspects; after all both English
            and Portuguese may combine perfect and progressive aspect, e.g.
            I have been working
            Tenho estado trabalhando

            Bulgarian has forms that combine perfect and imperfective
            and, I believe, other combinations are found.

            I can understand multiple tenses, in the strict sense of
            'time', if we have relative time. But I don't see how
            multiple moods would work.

            But all these interesting prefixes can appear in any order?
            Eeek! Are you trying to out-Maggel Maggel?

            --
            Ray
            ==================================
            http://www.carolandray.plus.com
            ==================================
            "language … began with half-musical unanalysed expressions
            for individual beings and events."
            [Otto Jespersen, Progress in Language, 1895]
          • Padraic Brown
            ... And English, two: past and nonpast. That s how I understood the T part of TAM anyway. ... Nuts! And I was looking ríght at A&G to make sure I was spelling
            Message 5 of 12 , Jul 13, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              > From: R A Brown <ray@...>

              >
              >
              >On 13/07/2013 12:14, Padraic Brown wrote:
              >>> From: neo gu
              >
              >I was beginning to think, from the lack of response, that i
              >was the only one baffled by this.  But it seems Padraic is
              >also
              >
              >>> T he current version (Jul05) marks TAM using suffixes.
              >>> First comes the aspect (stative or aoristic,
              >>> progressive, habitual, perfect, and prospective), then
              >>> the mood (imperative, subjunctive, and indicative plus
              >>> non-finite forms).
              >
              >OK - so the A and M parts of TAM are being shown separately.
              >  So obviously "tense" is not being used to refer to the
              >traditional 'tenses' set out in grammar book, e.g. the six
              >indicative & four subjunctive tenses of Latin.
              >
              >So I assumed "tense" was being used in the strict linguistic
              >sense of "[t]he grammatical category which correlates most
              >directly with distinctions in time" [Trask].  In which case
              >Latin has only three: past, present, future.  But ...


              And English, two: past and nonpast. That's how I understood the T
              part of TAM anyway.


              >
              >>> If the mood is indicative, the tense follows. There
              >>> are 5 suffixes in that slot:
              >>>
              >>> AT -- absolute time ("now") DT -- definite time
              >>> ("then")
              >>
              >> A question on terminology: I've never heard of these
              >> terms before, so don't know if they're Real Linguistics
              >> Terms or not;
              >> but intuitively speaking, the names themselves seem to
              >> refer to the same extent of Time. In other words, Now is
              >> absolute because of its presence, its nuncquity, its
              >> definiteness -- there can be no other now than Now! While
              >> Then would seem to refer to any other possible, less
              >> absolutely defined and more cuandocunquatious time.
              >
              >'cuandocunquatious' is a mix of Spanish & Latin with an
              >anglicized termination


              Nuts! And I was looking ríght at A&G to make sure I was spelling
              it right. :/ At least I spelled nuncquity right! ;)))


              >> It seems that the dichotomy is between a well defined NOW
              >> and an ill defined ELSEWHEN,
              >
              >Yep - that's what I understand.  Two-way contrasts between
              >past and non-past are not uncommon (e.g. ancient Greek and
              >modern English).  Less common is a two-way contrast of
              >future and non-future (e.h.Hua language of New Guinea).  But
              >I've not come across a present and non-present contrast
              >which is what we seem to have here.  Tho it s further
              >complicated by other so-ca;led 'tense' suffixes.


              I like the idea of present / nonpresent contrast; I think I've considered
              just this contrast for some project or other. Though I think a past /

              future contrast (with no present tense at all) might be interesting as well.
              The T part of TAM would simply be left unmarked; aspect and mood
              would shoulder the load alone.


              >>> QT -- question time (used in "when" questions)
              >
              >Yes, this I also find confusing.  What is 'Question time',
              >apart from a program on TV? 


              Oddly enough, this was my first reaction as well! (How I wish we could
              inflict our imperious leader with the same -- but that is an entirely different
              matter of discussion!)


              >> How do these work? You tantalise by defining, but fail to
              >> show us the goods!
              >
              >Quite so.  Tho there are, to be fair, a few examples.
              >However, it was not clear to me how this worked.


              Sure -- but the examples were AT and DT, except for one QT!


              >On 12/07/2013 22:28, Leonardo Castro wrote:
              >> In my conlang that is under construction, all these
              >> suffixes' combinations will be possible by means of
              >> preffixes, but there will be no right order for them to
              >> appear and it will be possible to use multiple aspects,
              >> multiple moods and even multiple tenses in the same
              >> verb.
              >
              >...and multiple voices?  Just kidding
              >
              >i can understand multiple aspects; after all both English
              >and Portuguese may combine perfect and progressive aspect, e.g.
              >I have been working
              >Tenho estado trabalhando
              >
              >Bulgarian has forms that combine perfect and imperfective
              >and, I believe, other combinations are found.
              >
              >I can understand multiple tenses, in the strict sense of
              >'time', if we have relative time.  But I don't see how
              >multiple moods would work.


              Well, WP says that Welsh has an "interrogatory mood" -- perhaps this
              mood could be used in conjunction with the indicative or conditional
              (e.g.) to show the questioner's perspective on the matter. That is, as an
              evidential of sorts. INT + INDIC = straight fact finding question ("Did
              John run in the race (or not)?); INT + SUBJ = disbelief regarding data
              (*Jòhn* ran in a ráce!? (Now pull the other one!)); INT + COND =
              conditional outcome query (Would John really run in a race (if...)?)

              I could see combining optative and conditional: I would wish that... or
              potential and optative: I would might go...

              Also "reduplicated mood markers", like double jussive "I should ought
              to do this..."


              >But all these interesting prefixes can appear in any order?
              >Eeek! Are you trying to out-Maggel Maggel?

              Nay! Say it not! Even thìnking such a thing could be attempted risks tearing
              asunder the very terrycloth of the universe!!

              Padraic


              >Ray
            • R A Brown
              ... [snip] ... First I ve heard of it. Where does WP say this? I ve looked at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colloquial_Welsh_morphology
              Message 6 of 12 , Jul 13, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                On 13/07/2013 23:06, Padraic Brown wrote:
                >> From: R A Brown
                [snip]
                >>
                >> I can understand multiple tenses, in the strict sense
                >> of 'time', if we have relative time. But I don't see
                >> how multiple moods would work.
                >
                >
                > Well, WP says that Welsh has an "interrogatory mood" --

                First I've heard of it. Where does WP say this? I've
                looked at:
                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colloquial_Welsh_morphology
                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literary_Welsh_morphology

                ...and can't find any mention of this strange mood. Also,
                of course, don't take everything WP says as true - because
                it ain't.

                Nor does my copy of "Gramadeg Cymraeg Cyfoes" know any such
                _mood_.

                Though I see Trask does note interrogative as mood:
                {quote}
                *interrogative* /ɪntə'rɒgətɪv/ _n._ or _adj._ The *mood*
                category associated with questions. A few languages have
                distinctive verbal inflections for this purpose, but the
                interrogative mood is more commonly expressed by particles,
                by distinctive word order or merely by intonation..
                (/quote}

                In welsh it's usually expressed by the particle _a_ before
                the verb, which causes soft mutation. The particle is
                normally omitted in the colloquial language, leaving only
                the soft mutation.

                The verb "to be" is rather more complicated; but this has
                special negative forms as well. there would be IMO just as
                much justification to talk about a 'negative mood' as well
                an interrogative one.
                > perhaps this mood could be used in conjunction with the
                > indicative or conditional

                Sure - if interrogation is counted as a mood it will indeed
                then combine with indicative, conditional, subjunctive,
                optative or any other mood you care to have.

                On looking up _mood_ in Trask, I find the category is not
                the 'simple' indicative, subjunctive, optative, imperative
                thing I learnt at school. It's actually quite complicated
                and there does not seem to be universal agreement on how
                much is covered by the term. In the longish definition
                given by Trask, I read;" Of all the widely attested
                grammatical categories, mood is perhaps the most elusive;
                mood distinctions tend to shade off almost imperceptibly
                into expressions of the speaker's attitude and into clearly
                pragmatic factors, such as the speaker's perceived
                relationship to other people."

                He goes on too note that some distinguish between
                _epistemic_ and _deontic modalities_, while others propose a
                three-way contrast between _illocutionary force_, _status_
                and _modality_. there is much more besides.

                Having now consulted Trask, which I ought to have done
                before I wrote my email yesterday, I can now well see how
                Leonardo could combine moods. I should have asked what the
                moods are, I guess.

                We live and learn.

                --
                Ray
                ==================================
                http://www.carolandray.plus.com
                ==================================
                "language … began with half-musical unanalysed expressions
                for individual beings and events."
                [Otto Jespersen, Progress in Language, 1895]
              • Padraic Brown
                ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_mood under Other Moods ... Oh, indeed! I m well aware of the nature of WP and how it s compiled and how its
                Message 7 of 12 , Jul 14, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  > From: R A Brown <ray@...>

                  >
                  > On 13/07/2013 23:06, Padraic Brown wrote:
                  >>> From: R A Brown
                  > [snip]
                  >>>
                  >>> I can understand multiple tenses, in the strict sense
                  >>> of 'time', if we have relative time.  But I don't see
                  >>> how multiple moods would work.
                  >>
                  >>
                  >> Well, WP says that Welsh has an "interrogatory mood" --
                  >
                  > First I've heard of it.  Where does WP say this?  I've
                  > looked at:
                  > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colloquial_Welsh_morphology
                  > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literary_Welsh_morphology

                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_mood under Other Moods

                  > ...and can't find any mention of this strange mood.  Also,
                  > of course, don't take everything WP says as true - because
                  > it ain't.

                  Oh, indeed! I'm well aware of the nature of WP and how it's compiled and
                  how its articles evolve (having done some work on a couple articles).  It
                  really wouldn't be terribly difficult to remove the attestation if it's not kosher...

                  > Nor does my copy of "Gramadeg Cymraeg Cyfoes" know any such
                  > _mood_.
                  >
                  > Though I see Trask does note interrogative as mood:
                  > {quote}
                  > *interrogative* /ɪntə'rɒgətɪv/ _n._ or _adj._ The *mood*
                  > category associated with questions.  A few languages have
                  > distinctive verbal inflections for this purpose, but the
                  > interrogative mood is more commonly expressed by particles,
                  > by distinctive word order or merely by intonation..
                  > (/quote}
                  >
                  > In welsh it's usually expressed by the particle _a_ before
                  > the verb, which causes soft mutation. The particle is
                  > normally omitted in the colloquial language, leaving only
                  > the soft mutation.
                  >
                  > The verb "to be" is rather more complicated; but this has
                  > special negative forms as well. there would be IMO just as
                  > much justification to talk about a 'negative mood' as well
                  > an interrogative one.

                  Perhaps! Though my point wasn't really to discuss Welsh grammar
                  (which particular seems to be a nonstarter), just to point out ways
                  moods còuld be combined to show something novel.

                  I hadn't really considered combining mood markers before, but
                  like the much vaunted surdéclinaison, wonderful things can result.

                  >> perhaps this mood could be used in conjunction with the
                  >> indicative or conditional
                  >
                  > Sure - if interrogation is counted as a mood it will indeed
                  > then  combine with indicative, conditional, subjunctive,
                  > optative or any other mood you care to have.
                  >
                  > On looking up _mood_ in Trask, I find the category is not
                  > the 'simple' indicative, subjunctive, optative, imperative
                  > thing I learnt at school.  It's actually quite complicated
                  > and there does not seem to be universal agreement on how
                  > much is covered by the term.  In the longish definition
                  > given by Trask, I read;" Of all the widely attested
                  > grammatical categories, mood is perhaps the most elusive;
                  > mood distinctions tend to shade off almost imperceptibly
                  > into expressions of the speaker's attitude and into clearly
                  > pragmatic factors, such as the speaker's perceived
                  > relationship to other people."

                  Indeed. I recall learning all sorts of "moods" in Latin (jussive e.g.)
                  and thinking "they have a whole mood just for thát?" The marches
                  are a bit indistinct and one never quite knows which side of the
                  border one is on.

                  > He goes on too note that some distinguish between
                  > _epistemic_ and _deontic modalities_, while others propose a
                  > three-way contrast between _illocutionary force_, _status_
                  > and _modality_.  there is much more besides.
                  >
                  > Having now consulted Trask, which I ought to have done
                  > before I wrote my email yesterday, I can now well see how
                  > Leonardo could combine moods.  I should have asked what the
                  > moods are, I guess.
                  >
                  > We live and learn.

                  Yes indeedy!

                  > Ray
                • carolandray+ray
                  ... [snip] ... Yes, and I notice the article begins: This article needs attention from an expert in Linguistics. It certainly does! Sadly I do not have the
                  Message 8 of 12 , Jul 14, 2013
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On 14.07.2013 12:54, Padraic Brown wrote:
                    >> From: R A Brown
                    >
                    >>
                    >> On 13/07/2013 23:06, Padraic Brown wrote:
                    [snip]
                    >>> Well, WP says that Welsh has an "interrogatory mood" --
                    >>
                    >> First I've heard of it.  Where does WP say this?  I've
                    >> looked at:
                    >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colloquial_Welsh_morphology
                    >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literary_Welsh_morphology
                    >
                    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_mood under Other Moods

                    Yes, and I notice the article begins: "This article needs attention
                    from an expert in Linguistics." It certainly does! Sadly I do not have
                    the expertise to do this. But the reference to the "interrogative mood"
                    in Welsh is misleading IMO. It affects the verb "to be" only, and the
                    basic form of "to be" in the interrogative tends to be that used in
                    negation also; the two forms have different preverbal clitics and/or
                    mutations. The various forms of "to be" are quite complex AFAIK in all
                    the Insular Celtic languages.

                    >> ...and can't find any mention of this strange mood.  Also,
                    >> of course, don't take everything WP says as true - because
                    >> it ain't.
                    >
                    > Oh, indeed! I'm well aware of the nature of WP and how it's compiled
                    > and
                    > how its articles evolve (having done some work on a couple
                    > articles). 

                    So have I :)

                    > It
                    > really wouldn't be terribly difficult to remove the attestation if
                    > it's not kosher...

                    I guess not - but IMO the whole articles needs going over a comptetent
                    linguist who is an expert in mood and modality.

                    But I'll not rabbit on. I'm away visiting in-laws at the moment and am
                    having to use webmail, which I don't much like :(

                    Ray.
                  • Leonardo Castro
                    ... Actually, I talked about aspects, tenses and moods just for comparison, because I want my conlang to have only modifiers that can be used as preffixes.
                    Message 9 of 12 , Jul 14, 2013
                    • 0 Attachment
                      2013/7/14 R A Brown <ray@...>:
                      > On 13/07/2013 23:06, Padraic Brown wrote:
                      >>>
                      >>> From: R A Brown
                      >
                      >
                      > Having now consulted Trask, which I ought to have done
                      > before I wrote my email yesterday, I can now well see how
                      > Leonardo could combine moods. I should have asked what the
                      > moods are, I guess.

                      Actually, I talked about aspects, tenses and moods just for
                      comparison, because I want my conlang to have only "modifiers" that
                      can be used as preffixes.

                      Instead of indicative and subjunctive, for instance, it'll have
                      modifiers meaning "actually/factually" and "hypothetically". They
                      could be combined to mean a "hypothetical fact" (something considered
                      as a fact in a hypothetical reality) or a "factual hypothesis". There
                      will be a hierarchy depending on which preffix is closer to the root
                      and also a way of putting them at the same hierarchical level.

                      >
                      > We live and learn.
                      >
                      >
                      > --
                      > Ray
                      > ==================================
                      > http://www.carolandray.plus.com
                      > ==================================
                      > "language … began with half-musical unanalysed expressions
                      > for individual beings and events."
                      > [Otto Jespersen, Progress in Language, 1895]
                    • Padraic Brown
                      ... Right --- but is that not just another way of saying a modifier for indicative (the mood of reality, factuality) and subjunctive (the mood of irreality,
                      Message 10 of 12 , Jul 15, 2013
                      • 0 Attachment
                        > From: Leonardo Castro leolucas1980@...

                        > Actually, I talked about aspects, tenses and moods just for
                        > comparison, because I want my conlang to have only "modifiers" that
                        > can be used as preffixes.
                        >
                        > Instead of indicative and subjunctive, for instance, it'll have
                        > modifiers meaning "actually/factually" and "hypothetically".

                        Right --- but is that not just another way of saying a modifier for
                        indicative (the mood of reality, factuality) and subjunctive (the
                        mood of irreality, hypotheticality)? :)

                        > They
                        > could be combined to mean a "hypothetical fact" (something considered
                        > as a fact in a hypothetical reality) or a "factual hypothesis".

                        Right. Such a fact would still be hypothetical and not real -- hence it would
                        still not be indicative. Unless you're positing a secondary set of moods that
                        would cover this territory -- a sort of parallel analog "Indicative-2" that would
                        work only in the hypothetical. Sort of like when we say "for the sake of argument"
                        or "assuming X to be true...".

                        Padraic
                      • Leonardo Castro
                        ... Hypotheticals would only make sense with the subjunctive modifier . With a tense modifier , only the reference time of the narrative will be shifted,
                        Message 11 of 12 , Jul 20, 2013
                        • 0 Attachment
                          2013/7/19 Padraic Brown <elemtilas@...>:
                          >> From: Leonardo Castro <leolucas1980@...>
                          >
                          >> With such a system, it's also straightforward to express tenses like
                          >> "future of the past" and "pluperfect" (past of the past)
                          >
                          > Why would you need a set of parallel-tenses (the world within another world tenses
                          > that deal with the reality of parallel hypotheticals) to talk about ordinary things that
                          > are all in the past?

                          "Hypotheticals" would only make sense with the "subjunctive modifier".
                          With a "tense modifier", only the reference time of the narrative will
                          be shifted, like the following example:

                          Present as reference: "Yesterday I was tired, today I'm sleeping,
                          tomorrow I'm going to be nice."
                          Past as reference: "I hab been tired the day before, I was sleeping
                          that day, I was going to be nice the next day."

                          Each verb of the latter could have two preffix or one can simply begin
                          the sentence with

                          {past-preffix} {following-text-pronoun}

                          and then maintain the paragraph in present tense.

                          Yes, I'm going to have anaphoric pronouns that refers to "the
                          following text", "the preceding text", and also "the
                          following/preceding sentence/event". It's not as unnatural as it
                          looks; natlangs have similar ways to refer to elements of the text
                          after and before, the difference is only that AFAIK they don't have
                          specific words to refer to things in the text structure, but rather
                          use more generic words such as demonstrative pronouns.

                          In Portuguese, "este", "esse" and "aquele" can refer to the last, the
                          penultimate and the antipenultimate elements described. Alternatively,
                          "este" refers to the following and "esse" to the preceding.

                          > Past of the past is already old hat in Latin, the old pluperfect: "I had (already) destroyed
                          > Carthage by the time most young men my age were still learning to drive their fathers'
                          > chariots." We don't really have a future of the past in English, but logically, the present
                          > tense covers this stretch of time (as does the future).

                          I think you have it in expressions like "I was going to do" or "I
                          would do". See this definition of "would":

                          « Used with bare infinitive to form the "anterior future", indicating
                          a futurity relative to a past time. [from 9th c.]  [quotations ▲]

                          1867, Anthony Trollope, Last Chronicle of Barset, ch. 28: That her
                          Lily should have been won and not worn, had been, and would be, a
                          trouble to her for ever.

                          2011 November 5, Phil Dawkes, “QPR 2 - 3 Man City”, BBC Sport: Toure
                          would have the decisive say though, rising high to power a header past
                          Kenny from Aleksandar Kolarov's cross. »

                          http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/would

                          >
                          > Padraic
                        • Padraic Brown
                          ... Huh? I thought hypotheticals were within the realm of that parallel set of verbal morphology belonging to the world with the world . (I stìll think
                          Message 12 of 12 , Jul 21, 2013
                          • 0 Attachment
                            > From: Leonardo Castro <leolucas1980@...>

                            >
                            >>> With such a system, it's also straightforward to express tenses like
                            >>> "future of the past" and "pluperfect" (past of the past)
                            >>
                            >> Why would you need a set of parallel-tenses (the world within another world tenses
                            >> that deal with the reality of parallel hypotheticals) to talk about ordinary things that
                            >> are all in the past?
                            >
                            > "Hypotheticals" would only make sense with the "subjunctive modifier".

                            Huh? I thought hypotheticals were within the realm of that parallel set of verbal
                            morphology belonging to the "world with the world". (I stìll think that's a cool idea!)

                            > With a "tense modifier", only the reference time of the narrative will
                            > be shifted, like the following example:
                            >
                            > Present as reference: "Yesterday I was tired, today I'm sleeping,
                            > tomorrow I'm going to be nice."
                            > Past as reference: "I had been tired the day before, I was sleeping
                            > that day, I was going to be nice the next day."

                            Okay. All of this is perfectly ordinary indicative and speaks of a series of
                            events that are either transpiring now (your "present as reference") or else are
                            transpiring before (your "past as reference"). Maybe I'm missing something,
                            but I don't see how a subjunctive will help here, nor how that other set of
                            hypothetical conjugations will help either...

                            > Each verb of the latter could have two prefix or one can simply begin
                            > the sentence with
                            >
                            > {past-prefix} {following-text-pronoun}
                            >
                            > and then maintain the paragraph in present tense.
                            >
                            > Yes, I'm going to have anaphoric pronouns that refers to "the
                            > following text", "the preceding text", and also "the
                            > following/preceding sentence/event". It's not as unnatural as it
                            > looks; natlangs have similar ways to refer to elements of the text
                            > after and before, the difference is only that AFAIK they don't have
                            > specific words to refer to things in the text structure, but rather
                            > use more generic words such as demonstrative pronouns.

                            Sure. We do this in English as well. "That said" is a good example
                            of a pronominal phrase referring to what has just been said (or
                            written). Other latiny phrases also serve as pronominals that refer
                            to text in relation to what is being said now: "q.v." refers to texts
                            located elsewhere in a document; "vid.inf." refers to text that
                            follows down below. These aren't *pronouns* in the way he, she
                            and it are pronouns; but they serve a similar function.

                            Can also use straight pronouns (which, the former, the latter) to refer
                            to other bits of text or speech.

                            > In Portuguese, "este", "esse" and "aquele" can
                            > refer to the last, the
                            > penultimate and the antipenultimate elements described. Alternatively,
                            > "este" refers to the following and "esse" to the preceding.

                            I guess we could say "which", "which previous" and "which anterior"
                            to accomplish the same. :)

                            >> Past of the past is already old hat in Latin, the old pluperfect: "I
                            > had (already) destroyed
                            >> Carthage by the time most young men my age were still learning to drive
                            > their fathers'
                            >> chariots." We don't really have a future of the past in English,
                            > but logically, the present
                            >> tense covers this stretch of time (as does the future).
                            >
                            > I think you have it in expressions like "I was going to do" or "I
                            > would do". See this definition of "would":

                            Hm. Now we're getting more into the realm of aspect, as opposed to
                            tense. We do indeed have these expressions, but the former (there's
                            your esse) expresses intention to do more than an actual future (although,
                            yes, the time reference **when viewed from the perspective of the speaker
                            at time WAS**, is in the future, the actual time reference **when viewed from
                            the perspective of the speaker** could be any time, past present or future).

                            For example, it's now 0814. If I tell you "I was going to go over to the cafe
                            for breakfast", I mean that up until my now speaking to you, I have had the
                            intention to do something that I have not yet done. This is all in the past,
                            even though, theoretically, the actual act of schlepping over to the cafe could
                            well be in some ill defined future. Obviously, as we move closer and closer to
                            the time of second breakfast, and then brunch and then nammetide and
                            eventually lunchtime, it'll all have been most assuredly and in the past!

                            As for the latter (there's your este), would is also an aspectual. "I would go to
                            the cafe..." indicates the desire to go, or the preference to go. It is often
                            accompanied by a but clause that ruins the party by running contrary to desire:
                            ...but the health services closed the place down last week on account of an
                            infestation of cats."

                            > « Used with bare infinitive to form the "anterior future", indicating
                            > a futurity relative to a past time. [from 9th c.]  [quotations ▲]
                            >
                            > 1867, Anthony Trollope, Last Chronicle of Barset, ch. 28: That her
                            > Lily should have been won and not worn, had been, and would be, a
                            > trouble to her for ever.

                            Myeh. I don't see that as really "anterior future", though. It's all in the past. It
                            certainly has echos and resonances with later pasts, but tis all water under
                            the bridge.

                            Maybe it's because we just don't have ANY actual future tense in English,
                            that I'm not seeing what might be obvious to you. So many verb forms in
                            English can indicate or hint at future events without actually directly referring
                            to the same.

                            Even our "future tenses" par excellence, "will" and "going to", don't directly
                            refer to the future any more than our past tense does! Will and shall merely
                            forshadow the future -- the desire or the obligation to do something at some
                            distant date. Would is perhaps a little more standoffish, backing away a little
                            from the stronger desires of will and the absolute necessities of shall, always
                            falling before a strong prohibition. Going to clearly shows the process of and
                            the standing ready to, but none of these come right out and declare their futurity
                            the way your "comaré" does! All of these actually happen in the present time! ;)
                            This is how I understand it, anyway.

                            > 2011 November 5, Phil Dawkes, “QPR 2 - 3 Man City”, BBC Sport: Toure
                            > would have the decisive say though, rising high to power a header past
                            > Kenny from Aleksandar Kolarov's cross. »
                            >
                            > http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/would
                             
                            Padraic
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.