Re: Tense marked on nouns

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark P. Line" <mark@...>


> Jim Grossmann said:
  (and I'll get to him)

> > Mark P. Line wrote:
> >
> > "That said, I think it's [marking tense on the noun is] an *awesome*
idea
> > for a conlang. It's different enough from the way natlangs work to be
> > intriguing, while not so different that it would prevent usage (unlike,
> > say,
> > unrestricted center embedding).  Lots of natlangs have clause-level
> > markers
> > on nouns, after all -- but they tend to be involved with valence
> > assignment
> > and/or pragmatic functions that are more-or-less intimately tied up with
> > the
> > noun being marked."
Hi, Mark; could you give an example?  It's very hard to extract from all the
linguistics speak.  What are the clause-level markers in which languages
that tend to be involved with valence assignment that could lead to a
development, in your mind, of tense marked on nouns?   Any in English?
Actually, you might answer this below in your example.

> > Jim G. wrote:
> >
> > When I read this, the first thing that came to my mind was a system in
> > which
> > vowel-alternation was used to mark proximate vs. remote AND past,
present,
> > and future.  In this nonce-language, assume that all the vowels are
> > syllabic:
> >
> > v-dors (dog)
> >
> > -a- proximate
> > -i- remote
> >
> > -u- past
> > -o- present
> > -e- future
> >
> > vaudors this-dog-in-the-past
> > vaodors this-dog-in-the-present
> > vaedors this-dog-in-the-future
> >
> > viudors that-dog-in-the-past
> > viodors that-dog-in-the-present
> > viedors that-dog-in-the-future
> >
[Interesting stuff snipped for clarity]
> >
> > Would the foregoing illustrate tense marking on the nouns?
Actually, whether it does or not, it's quite an awesome little example, and
very interesting.

Mark responds:

> Glossed as you have them here, my answer would be 'no'. Tense is a way to
> distinguish temporal relations at the clause level, thus distinguishing
> the following:
>
> (a) John gave yesterday's paper to the former president.
> (b) John's giving yesterday's paper to the former president.
> (c) John's gonna give yesterday's paper to the former president.
>
> There are *other* temporal relations expressed in these examples (by
> modifying the nouns), but they're not tense because they're not expressing
> temporal relations of the event to which the clause is referring.
Okay, this I understand.  Is this an example of what I was seeking from you
above?   I.e., clause level markers involved with valence assignment and
other pragmatic uses?

> A language that truly marked *tense* on nouns instead of on the verb or
> periphrastically in the clause would have to something like this:
>
> (a) Djanden yestadepela pepa wantaimpela perezent gif.
> (b) Djanbi yestadepela pepa wantaimpela perezent gif.
> (c) Django yestadepela pepa wantaimpela perezent gif.
"The then John"?  "The now John"?  "The future John"?   Yeah, that's cool.
If I have that right.  But how does it differ from Jim's example?

> And even here, we only have morphological tense marking on the noun 'Djan'
> if the attached morphemes '-den', '-bi' and '-go' really are *affixes* and
> not clitics.
Why is that a problem?  What difference does it make if it's an affix or a
clitic, which are very similar animals in my ignorant sense of these things?
Now if each noun were internally changed, in the way some cases are, for
tense, would that solve the problem?  Djan, Djain, Djeno?  But then, didn't
cases start out with noun + affix?

Thanks for bearing with..., Sally

http://www.frontiernet.net/~scaves/teotax.html

Reply