Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Interesting way of expressing tense/aspect distinctions.

From:Ray Brown <ray.brown@...>
Date:Saturday, March 20, 2004, 7:57
On Friday, March 19, 2004, at 11:16 AM, Peter Bleackley wrote:

> Basically, rather than being marked for tense and aspect in the usual way, > the verb is marked for inception and termination. The inception marker > (probably a prefix) indicates when the action begins, and the termination > marker (probably a suffix) indicates when it ends. The possible values for > each of them might be distant past, immediate past, present, immediate > future and distant future,
I came on across a proposed system similar to this many years ago..
> with the possibility of a null value for "unspecified".
..but without the "unspecified" value. The scheme is, of course, 'one dimensional'. I tend to think of tense & aspect as two different 'verbal dimensions', so I'm wondering how your scheme would work out. Without the 'unspecified' marker, the scheme seems to only to be a way of dividing up time, i.e. tense. But the addition of the 'unspecified' marker does add something of aspect, e.g. a non-unspecified terminator, I guess, shows perfective aspect while an unspecified terminator shows imperfective aspect. I'm trying to see what unspecified inceptor implies. A verb with unspecified inceptor & unspecified terminator suggests to me 'irrealis' which seems to take us into the 'modal' dimension'
> This all maps out much the same semantic space as tense and > aspect, but divides it up in a slightly different way.
I don't see how this addresses things like 'habitual', 'iterative. 'durative' aspect - or are yoou concerned just with the perfective ~ imperfective aspectual contrast? An interesting idea - but I would like to see some actual examples. Ray =============================================== (home) (work) =============================================== "A mind which thinks at its own expense will always interfere with language." J.G. Hamann, 1760