Re: a verb aspect--what's it called?

On Tue, 10 Oct 2000, Sally Caves wrote:

> Your contemplative actually sounds like a subjunctive,
> and hence a mood, rather than an aspect.  I've often
> wondered why moods and aspects are different categories.
> How, for instance, in translation, would you render the
> "contemplative"?  Can you give us an example?  And how
> would it seem different from a subjunctive?
Hmm.  Suppose the verb being used is "to eat."

Then the contemplative might be used in any of the following ways:
I want to eat.
I'm going to eat (but I haven't started yet).
I will eat (and haven't yet, but you can't stop me!).
I wish I could eat (but can't and am not).

> Would it be something like:  "I would be a mariner, would
> that I were a mariner."  "Would that I run for election!"
> "I should run for election."  "I am thinking of running for
> election, I may run for election." ???
Something like that, except I wanted it to express *any* action that
hasn't yet been instantiated, whether it's just future tense, a wish, a
command, etc.  I think _Pacific Languages_ talked about realis and
irrealis and how different languages handle the two.  In this case I
guess Meep doesn't distinguish between possible and impossible actions,
merely actions-that-have-been-done, actions-that-are-being-done, and
actions-that-have-not-yet-been-done (whether or not they can or can't be
done, or anyone wants or doesn't want them to be done).

Sounds terribly fuzzy, doesn't it?  But I want Meep to be fuzzy around
the edges.  More a whimsy artlang than a "serious" artlang.

Plus, I meep at friends all the time anyway, so it may as well mean
something!

> "Wemned," another modal, is T's only inclination towards
> something like the subjunctive or the conditional:  "y wem
> ennyve" means "I may/might/could eat," and it seems to be
> the closest thing to what you call the "contemplative."  Yet
> I have no name for it, and it often occurs in a cause/effect
> clause:  "Y wem ennyve ti tyr ennyve fy"  (I may eat if you eat
> too.)   Not a very efficient system, since it covers too many
> subtleties.  I suppose it could stand alone, in which case
> it means "I'm thinking about eating."  Y wem run for election
> definitely means "I may run, I'm thinking of running," but
> not necessarily "I should run."  There is another modal,
> "hmened," "to be constrained/obligated to," for that.
Neat distinction!  Wish I'd thought of it.

> There is the desiderative modal:  "Y dihs ennyve, dihsry ennyve"
> (I want to eat).  Hmmm.  Is your verb a desiderative?
Could be that too.

The intention is for Meep to only make simple distinctions (well, from a
quirky Yoon Ha standpoint anyway) and let context take care of the rest.
I conceive of it as an artlang to be used for saying things like "Stop
that!" and "I want food" and "Let's do something interesting" and "I'm
having a lousy day" rather than, oh, philosophy or science or anything
remotely serious.

YHL