Re: THEORY: Tenses for Time Travelers...
|From:||Remi Villatel <maxilys@...>|
|Date:||Friday, August 19, 2005, 17:33|
>>So, instead of the verb, the tense marking must be set on the
>> objects and the subject.
> Now, /that/ ... is a cool idea!
> It might, indeed, be what I'm looking for.
We (the list) already had a thread about tense marking on nouns in june
2004. (Luckily my archives -- that I should think about trimming-- go
back to april 2004.)
>>present-I be not hungry, past-I eat this absolute.future night.
> A paraphrase of "I'm not hungry, I already ate later this afternoon"?
>>present-He is on an absolute.past mission that may affect the
>> absolute present.
> OK, this is a tough one for me.
> What is "present-He"?
> If "He"'s not here now while we're having this conversation,
> how do I know I need the "present-" marking on the "-He"?
If he's not here that's because he's on a mission. Whatever the absolute
time in which his mission takes place, his present is to be over there
while our common present is to discuss this fact. His present is our
common past... and vice versa.
> Especially, if "He"'s already in the absolute.past on his mission,
> why wouldn't I use "past-He"?
That's only the mission that is in our absolute past. If you use
"past-he" it means that his mission is already over for him.
> As for the "may affect the absolute.present",
> is that in my.future and/or your.future and/or his.future?
Since he is in our absolute past, our absolute present is his future.
> Reading below, I see that "may affect" is
> in the mission's future and in the absolute.present's future.
There's no tense marking on "may affect" only a mood marking. And of
course "may affect" can only apply to a future event. Despite the
time-travel thing a cause and its effect are always logically ordered in
the absolute time. Here the cause is in his present --our common past--
and the effects may be on all the mission's future: our absolute present
and its future.
When the past time-traveler comes back to our common present, future-you
or future-I can ask future-him:
-- How is your past mission?
Hopefully, future-he answers:
-- Past-it goes well. Present-I still recognize this absolute present.
(I really hope I make things clearer...)
> That's why I included "mood and modality for track-jumpers",
> or whatever I called it, as well as "tense for time-travelers".
> Obviously a historical event which is no longer history is a very
> special kind of irrealis (irrealis that used to be realis?).
Before to discard the whole subject, I was thinking of a bilinear system
of evidentials to describe the proximity of reality from another
timeline relative to ours and its "distance of divergence" --i.e.
whether the timeline "appeared" in a close or distant past.
When Neil Armstrong put the foot on the moon, he tripped and his first
words were "Holy shit!". That makes an alternate timeline with a great
"distance of divergence" (How many years, already?) but also a great
proximity of reality because the only difference with our reality is
that somebody at the NASA said twice to the astronauts to watch their mouth.
Yesterday somebody wore a grey shirt and got hit by a car while in our
reality he wore a red shirt so the driver saw him earlier and avoid the
accident. The accident prevents that person from reaching his laboratory
and from preventing the escape of a virus that killed half of humankind
in a few hours. This timeline has a small "distance of divergence" (One
day) but it is not very close from our reality.
If you see what I mean, please explain to me. ;-)