There are 3 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: Unusual Tenses
From: Leonardo Castro
1b. Re: Unusual Tenses
From: Padraic Brown
2.1. Re: Prairie Dog Language - no, really.
From: Padraic Brown
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: Unusual Tenses
Posted by: "Leonardo Castro" leolucas1...@gmail.com
Date: Fri Jul 12, 2013 2:28 pm ((PDT))
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 <qiihos...@gmail.com>:
> 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?
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: Unusual Tenses
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" elemti...@yahoo.com
Date: Sat Jul 13, 2013 4:14 am ((PDT))
> From: neo gu <qiihos...@gmail.com>
>
>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?
>
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2.1. Re: Prairie Dog Language - no, really.
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" elemti...@yahoo.com
Date: Sat Jul 13, 2013 4:57 am ((PDT))
> From: Alex Fink <000...@gmail.com>
>
> | In rabbits there is no interocular
> | transfer of learning! That is, if you train a rabbit that a particular
> | shape is a source of danger by demonstrations carefully restricted to its
> | left eye, the rabbit will exhibit no "knowledge" about that shape, no
> | fear or flight behavior, when the menacing shape is presented to its
> | right eye. When we ask what it is like to be that rabbit, it appears that
> | at the very least we must put a subscript, dexter or sinister, on our
> | question in order to make it well-formed.
>
> Hard for me to imagine rabbits tàlking (rather than just innately signalling)
> about things they're seeing, or snakes about their prey, in that light.
Their talk is undoubtedly rather strange to our ears, because each physical
rabbit
contains two imperfectly overlapping inner rabbits, in a constant state of
confused,
interlinked yet disconnected confabulation. It may take them several minutes of
heated debate of the highest rhetorical standards just to ascertain the nature
of a
bit of carrot that only one side can see. This, of course, is why rabbits hop
about
in a most haphazard and loppity fashion, for now Dexter has the reins and wants
to explore a promising bit of clover and now Sinister sees a bit of soft new
grass...
Oo, I say Dexter me auld chap! I see that sly old fox running along, running as
if he's in a race!
Why, Sinister me bosom friend, I han't seen no "fox" and can scarce imagine
such a strange
creature!
By the left mon frere, old Reynard is a cunning and vile chap! A red cloak with
black mitts and
boots he wears, and a toothsome grin. Why, I saw Reynard run down old
Baggum-Lopp just
yesterday and gobble her down!
I had no idea! Baggum-Lopp you say? I was rather fond of her Sinister. Quiet
lass. Her
Dexter was a bit talky, mind. While I can't quite put me old thumb on this
Reynard fellow, he
seems to be quite the bounder. But I am certain we are in no danger, my good
sir, for I can see
no enemies at all! Yet you sound like you're quite beside yourself!
Indeed I am beside meself, Dexter me lad, on account of me being beside thee!
And now
old Reynard is coming our way!
Oh, deary me! Whatever shall we do?
Don't you roll your precious eye at me, Dexter-do! Let's just lop away from
here, for my eye
sees right into his eyes! Up up! Let us be off and hide from the old monster
before he can grin
us both to death!...
> Hm, conspecies idea: what about a species which has more than one independent
> *consciousness* that don't interface with each other, the same way the
> critters above have multiple sensory modalities that don't interface with
> each other?
In the World there are some people that are like this. The Ytuun (the World's
take on the old
two headed giant theme) each have two heads and thus two independent personas.
Right head
and Left head have their own identities and their own personalities, yet share
one body with
one set of limbs. So, they must cooperate with themselves in order to function,
but they otherwise
don't interfere and don't interface with each other. In other words, no
telepathy here. The cooperation
seems to be entirely subconscious and somatic in nature: Right might be
dominant when to comes to
large-scale movements required for bashing an enemy over the heads with a staff
while Left might be
more inclined to finer movements required for working a piece of wood into a
beautiful shape. They
shift from brain to brain seemlessly, though seem at a loss if one or the other
becomes incapacitated.
In the primary world, of course, a conjoined twin will fit the bill: a single
body with two independent
consciousnesses that don't interface with each other.
Padraic
Messages in this topic (40)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/
<*> Your email settings:
Digest Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
conlang-nor...@yahoogroups.com
conlang-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
conlang-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
