Re: THEORY: Tenses for Time Travelers; Plus, Moods and Modalities for Alternate Realities

--- In conlang@yahoogroups.com, # 1 <salut_vous_autre@H...> wrote:
> Tom Chappell wrote:
>
> >A society of time-travelers who meet at a particular time may need
to
> >specify "past" or "future" in three different time-scales:
> >Speaker's past vs Speaker's future;
> >Addressee's past vs Addressee's future;
> >Subject's past vs Subject's future ("Subject" = subject of
sentence.).
> >
>
> If the sentence carries a speakeror addressee's past or futur,
isn't to tell
> the time of the subject?
I can't quite tell what you mean.  Your point might be valid.
I would like to have it clarified/elucidated.

> I'd rather tell the opposition between past and
> futur of the moment they are talking
Same for this point as for previous;  what you say sounds definitely
worth investigating, maybe it could be right, but I am not clear
enough about what you are trying to say.

However, I believe you may be saying that it is a worthwhile
distinction for the interlocutors to make, whether the events they
talk about occur at, before, or after the time of their conversation,
in the time-as-an-ever-rolling-stream non-time-traveling outside
universe.

Whether or not that is what you were saying, I think that may be true.

-----

It occurs to me I may not have been explicit enough about what I
meant by "speaker's past/future",
"addressee's past/future", "subject's past/future".

In case of these terms, I was referring to the referent's life-line,
not to any if-I-time-travel-no-more kind of time.

To construct a scenario similar to yours below;

I (speaker) at the age of 25 met you (addressee) at the age of 50 in
1975, where we meet and interact with Charlie, Doug, and Eddie
(triplets, age 40).

Then, I at the age of 50 meet you at the age of 25 in 2100,
where/when I tell you the sad news that Charlie died in 1865 at the
age of 60, Doug died in 3000 at the age of 70, but Eddie is living
right here and right now, although he's only 41.  (Shame on me, by
the way; I don't even know if you've met Charlie and Doug "yet"
in /your/ life-line.)

You respond that, unfortunately, Eddie was in a fatal automobile
accident you happened to witness in 1974, when you were 15 and he
was, apparently, about 43.  (Shame on you, now, but I did it first.)

At that time, Charlie's death is in my and Charlie's and the
universe's past, but in your future.  Doug's death is in my and
Doug's past, but your and the universe's future.  Eddie's death is in
my and Eddie's future, but your and the universe's past.

-----

One thing this brings up is, "the subject's future" vs. "the
subject's past" is variable, depending on who's speaking.  Maybe I
should leave that category out, and replace it with "the universe's
past" vs "the universe's future".  In any case, I should include the
latter category, whether or not I get rid of the former.

>
> With a prefix that carries the speaker's tense, a suffix for the
addresse's,
> and a final word for the tense relative to the moment, it could
be "I
> PRESENT-kill-FUTUR him PAST" to mean that the killing has been done
by the
> speaker later than when they are having this talking, sooner than
the time
> the speaker's from, and at the moment the addressee is from...
Sounds like it might be an interesting way to handle it.
A worked-up-example would be nice; can you sketchlang one for me?

>
> In a situation, it may be a man from 3000 that meets a man from
2500 in 2100
> that says that he killed someone in 2500. The killing
occured/occurs/will
> occur before the speaker's time, during the addressee's time, and
after the
> time they aare having this talking...
>
> Hard to handle... Principaly because one doesn't come from a single
moment,
> but from a lifetime. If someone comes in the past 50 years ealier
at the age
> of 75 (when he may or may not meet oneself), and decide to stay for
its
> whole life and never to get 50 years later, which speaker time will
he use
> during these 50 years? Its original one? The one he prefers?
>
> >That leads to 11 tenses, since the Speaker's Present and
> >the Addressee's Present will be the same moment, and we can assume
> >that the Subject's Present takes place in the Speaker's and
> >Addressee's Present.
> >
>
> If the speaker's past and futur are different from those of the
adressee, I
> assume that it means that their respective past and futur and based
on the
> time they come from instead of the time they are having this
conversation.

No, I was unclear in my O.P.
I meant, future or past relative to their individual lifelines.
To keep things simple,
I always mean "just exactly right now this instant" by "present".

>
> Assuming this, their respective presents should mean the exact
moment from
> which they are from, which may be different.
>
>
> The complcated part is, will the time travels alter the timeline?
If not: A
> man gets in the past to kill his mother before his birth before
coming back
> in his time when nothing has changed, the alternative timeline
would have to
> work differently in the speaker/addresse/moment/subject times... If
so...
> well, time travelling would be really chaotic and adapting grammar
a
> complicated thing.
Yeah, once you throw in Alternate Time Lines, it can get complicated.
:-)

>
> I realise I don't help to nothing but to talking about sci-fi
thories...

I think you helped.

BTW I like thories.  I also like stories and theories.
I'm not sure what a thory is, but I can already tell I like them.

>
> I'd like to see your grammar when it'll be done!
Oh, me too, me too!

>
> - Max
Thanks.

Tom H.C. in MI