Re: Anti-telic?

Hi,

On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 Kalle Bergman wrote:
>
> > But can _anything_ continue indefinitely in a
> > temporal universe?
>
> Is this a relevant question?
Yes, since telicity is concerned with boundedness.
Which leads me to propose the following interpretations:

 - telic - having bounds
 - atelic - having no bounds
 - protelic - for (in favour of) having bounds
 - antitelic - against (opposed to) having bounds

But I don't think this is what Sai was after.
I imagine he was looking for a dialectical
synthesis of telic and atelic - on this reading,
a condition, state or entity would be antitelic
if it transcended the category "boundedness".
Such a thing is, IMO, very unlikely to occur as
a *structural* element of any (human) natlang.
(I don't know about dolphins.)


> After all, the structure of a language is not a
> vehicle for metaphysical analysis. ...
I wonder!  Can a language's very structure not express
some commonly-held views on the nature of reality?
eg tense expresses notions of time; voice expresses
views on the existence and effectiveness of agency;
mood and aspect may inform us about the speaker's
epistemological views: views on the nature of knowledge ...


> ... Any language can
> express an infinite number of metaphysically or
> logically absurd statements (colorless green
> ideas...).
True, but some linguistic structures make it extremely
difficult to formulate particular statements.  This is
why each new science or technology needs to create
its own new terms and ways of connecting them.


> Furthermore, what is "indefinite" in an everyday sense
> need not be the same as in the strict sense. When I
> say "they're going to go on dating indefinitely", I
> don't literally mean that they'll date _'til the end
> of the universe_.
Exactly so.  But that doesn't make them "essentially
unbounded" (which is what I take "atelic" to mean)
or things of which it is meaningless to predicate
boundedness (which is what I take "antitelic", in Sai's
sense, to mean).


> I could imagine that the "antitelic" would fill the
> role which is, in english, filled by the adverb, well,
> "indefinitely". So instead of saying "they're going to
> go on dating indefinitely", you say "they date", and
> inflect the verb for antitelic aspect.
Your meaning is also implicit in the continuous tenses:
"They were dating", "They are dating", "They will be
dating".  or "She is watering the garden".   The simple
tenses can also express habitual action, with no implied
beginning or end time, particularly when augmented by
an adverb like "always" or "usually":  "He always parks
on the front lawn", "I mostly eat lunch in the park".
But I don't take any of these to be Sai_antitelic,
since none of these express a *necessary* connection
outside the category of "boundedness".  They all begin
and finish, with the abilities of the subjects to perform
the action, or enjoy the relation, expressed.

(I don't know whether Sai wants the antitelic connection
to be a necessary one ... Sai?  Is "Grass is green" antitelic?)


> /Kalle B
>
> --- R A Brown skrev:
>
> > Sai Emrys wrote:
> > > I'm re-re-watching Pearson's talk, and wonder...
> > > there's telic, and atelic... is there an anti-telic?
> > >
> > > This would be a verb that not just doesn't have a
> > > *necessary* endpoint, or *can* continue indefinitely,
> > > but *must* continue indefinitely. (Aspect would also
> > > be a bit weird with it.)
> >
> > But can _anything_ continue indefinitely in a
> > temporal universe?
> >
> > Even the universe itself will end, according to some, in
> > the 'Big Crunch'; tho according to others it just goes
> > on, and on, and on...   In which case, a verb describing
> > an ever enduring universe might qualify for 'anti-telic'.
> > But what else?
> >
> > When we come to concepts of the eternity of God, of
> > the soul etc, we are, as I understand it, dealing with
> > the concept of *timelessness*, in which case the
> > telic/atelic business is irrelevant.
Which is when I think Sai's concept of antitelic kicks in -
the notion of boundaries just doesn't apply.  But that *is*
a pretty big metaphysical claim!  If it's true, how could we
understand an assertion like the following: "If God did not
exist, it would be necessary to invent Him"?


> > > Any natlang or conlang examples of this?
> >
> > Indeed. I cannot see that it is possible.
> >
> > > (This relates to another thing mentioned by John Q
> > > quoting me at the talk, about having a verb tense that
> > > denotes some sort of cyclical tense - e.g. it happened
> > > in the past and will happen in the future,
> > > but isn't happening right now.)
> >
> > Sort of like Vesuvius erupting or Yellowstone Park
> > blowing itself apart?
> > Interesting idea - but altho natlangs show interesting
> > variety in the way they organize tenses, I don't know
> > any examples of a "once did & will do again" tense.
> ------------------------------
>
> Ray replied to Kalle:
>
> Kalle Bergman wrote:
> >>But can _anything_ continue indefinitely in a
> >>temporal universe?
> >
> >
> > Is this a relevant question?
>
> Yes, as I see it.
>
> telic = having a goal which bring the activity, event, circumstance etc
> to an end
> atelic = an activity, event, circumstance etc which has no
> _recognizable_ goal which will bring this to an end.
>
> Thus events, activities, circumstances etc etc which may go on for ever
> are atelic. But to designate another category, 'anti-telic', as one
> which *must* go on for ever, presumably with definitely no goal (whether
> we can recognize it or not) does seem to me to pose a picture of the
> universe which is not generally shared AFAIK.
I may have misunderstood Sai's intention, then.


> > After all, the structure of a language is not a
> > vehicle for metaphysical analysis. Any language can
> > express an infinite number of metaphysically or
> > logically absurd statements (colorless green
> > ideas...).
>
> That is the deliberate juxtaposition of semantic elements in a way which
> we _know_ does not make sense.
>
> > Furthermore, what is "indefinite" in an everyday sense
> > need not be the same as in the strict sense. When I
> > say "they're going to go on dating indefinitely", I
> > don't literally mean that they'll date _'til the end
> > of the universe_.
>
> Sigh - I sort of *know* that!! But please tell me in what way "they're
> going to go on dating indefinitely" is *not* atelic.
>
> The point I was trying, obviously unsuccessfully, to make is that I
> cannot see how a category 'anti-telic' makes sense in a natlang.
Oh, I think it makes sense in a *conlang*.  Imagine
a society in which knowledge of the ruling philosophy,
and an ability to use its metaphors fluently, were
necessary to achieving any kind of social advancement.
Not too hard, surely?  Perhaps it would largely resemble
Maoist China ...  In which case, let's say "The sunrise is
red this morning" - this obviously requires the present
tense, but it's no way expressing a necessary connection
between red and sunrise.  Let's also say "The East is Red".
In the dominant ideology of the culture, this expresses a
permanent and necessary connection betwen East and
Red - both terms being metaphors - that is *supposed*
to know no bounds.  The use of the simplest grammatical
form (à la Trask) to express this connection is nothing
other than a metaphor that lends immediacy to an
otherwise rather abstruse and (potentially) contentious
utterance.  There's no compelling reason, IMO, why such
a culture might not evolve an antitelic aspect or mood, to
imply that the East is necessarily or inherently Red.


> > I could imagine that the "antitelic" would fill the
> > role which is, in english, filled by the adverb, well,
> > "indefinitely".
>
> No, it does not. "Indefinite" is not AFAIK synonymous with "*must* go on
> for ever." "Indefinite" surely means that there is no goal, that we know
> of, that will bring their dating to and end and that it will go on, sort
> of, indefinitely - i.e. atelic.
> =================================
>
> Sai Emrys wrote:
>  > On 7/11/06, R A Brown wrote:
>  >
>  >> But can _anything_ continue indefinitely in a temporal universe?
>  >
>  >
>  > Hey mon, that's your belief system.
>
> Not just mine. AFAIK it's the opinion of modern science & has been a
> widely held belief for millennia. Which is, maybe, why it hasn't figured
> in natlang grammar.
>
>  > Don't foist it onto the grammar.
>  > :-)
>
> Please, I am *not* foisting any belief system onto grammar. I am merely
> accepting natlang grammar as we know it.
Mah mon be jokin' wit' ya!!!

But you asked a question about "a temporal universe".
Is that a universe that -
 a) is limited by time, or
 b) includes time as part of its internal structure?

In a "finite but unbounded" universe model, time and
space may continue indefinitely (without end), yet
the entire thing still not exceed some fixed size.  A
suitable metric (measure) for this can be imagined
using the following analogy:

1. Draw a circle of radius 8 units.
2. Draw a diameter.
3. Start at the centre of the circle.
4. Take one step along the diameter toward the circle's
edge, of size equal to one-half of the distance remaining
to reach that edge; mark your position.
5. Repeat step 4 indefinitely.

You will never reach the edge of the circle!  The circle
has a finite area; the steps you have marked are your
distance measuring-stick in the circle universe.  Looked
at another way, the further you go from the centre, the
slower you go.  No matter how far you go, the edge is
always the same distance away - an infinite number of
steps.  You can increase your distance from the centre
as much as you like, but you will never decrease your
distance to the edge ...

The 3- or 4-dimensional analogue of this circle universe
has been seriously proposed as a possible model for the
physical structure of our own.  And even if it's not the
reality, or may be discarded in favour of some other
model, nothing prevents us using it in a con-universe.

To now answer your question:
>>> But can _anything_ continue indefinitely in a temporal universe?
Yes, in such a universe, an object might continue
travelling for both infinite distance and infinite
time - even tho that universe might be "a world
in a grain of sand".


> An atelic circumstance, event, action etc could go on for ever or it
> could not. But by introducing a _specific_ 'anti-telic' aspect, surely
> it you who are proposing to foist onto grammar a belief system that says
> quite definitely that there is at least one circumstance/event/action
> which must go on for ever.   ;)
Indeed, why would any grammar express a contingency
held by most of its users to be nonsense?


>  >(Let alone given that we may be dealing with a conworld... I'm
>  > thinking, e.g. Wheel of Time series.)
>
> In a conworld, maybe, I guess - yes, they live happily ever after  :)
>
> As for the WoT, I read "The Wheel of Time turns and ages come and pass.
> What was, what will be, and what is, may yet fall under the Shadow" -
> the 'ages come and pass' is surely telic for each age. "May yet fall
> under the Shadow" is surely a possible 'goal' that may being a cessation
> to something. The 'Wheel of Time' turns might be 'anti-telic' in Robert
> Jordan's conworld, I don't know.
>
>  >
>  > And even 'big crunch' ways, AFAIK it's just that we have no way to
>  > know what'd happen afterwards (ditto pre-'big bang'). Might be
>  > cyclical on a grand scale.
"before" the big bang and after the "big crunch"
don't actually mean anything as we understand
"before" and "after" - our time is a part of this
universe.  Which is another way of saying *we*
couldn't experience anything outside this universe.
Tho others might ...


> Might be cyclical - but, in such a picture, the universe as we know it
> has a beginning & end.
Exactly so.  The Hindu mythology includes vast
cycles of creation and destruction, but quite
interestingly, I think, orders them in a sequence.
So in this worldview, at least, there is "a time
outside time".


>  > But y'know, most people probably aren't comparing their tenses (even
>  > cyclical ones) to quite that vast of a timescale. ;-)
>
> Which is, I guess, why most of us get along with telic and atelic  ;)
>
> In any case telicity is surely to do with _aspect_, not tense. If one is
> to posit a third degree of telicity, i.e. 'anti-telic', then this must
> surely denote an event, action, circumstance or whatever that:
> 1. (in your own words) "not just doesn't have a *necessary*
> endpoint, or *can* continue indefinitely, but *must* continue
> indefinitely"
> 2. and, as a corollary, that does not just have no recognizable goal but
> *must have no possible goal* which could ever bring the event, action,
> circumstance to an end.
>
> As far as I can see, unless both conditions are met, the action, event,
> circumstance etc is atelic.
It ain't necessarily so.  See my dialectical resolution
of a possible other meaning for this term, above, as
being "outside goals".


> [snip]
>  >> > Any natlang or conlang examples of this?
>  >>
>  >> Indeed. I cannot see that it is possible.
>  >
>  > Surely you can see it grammatically?
>
> No, otherwise I would not have questioned it.
>
> [snip]
>  >
>  > E.g. [roughly] "the universe exists" is probably anti-telic...
>
> Only if you believe that there definitely is no goal which can possibly
> bring the universe to an end and that it must necessarily go on for ever
> and ever and ever..........
>
> And that is foisting one's belief system onto grammar   ;)
>
> I will give ground in that one may well 'foist' one's own belief system
> onto a conworld & therefore a conlanguage in such a conworld might have
> anti-telic, atelic & telic aspects.
I'd think that perhaps the Hindu sages, in speaking
of the cycles of creation, were deliberately using
language in ways that transcended the usual meanings
of tenses and aspects.  But AFAIK, they never did
invent new grammatical structures to express the
"transcendent" or "sublime".


> But I would need to see a clear, unambiguous example of an 'anti-telic'
> event/circumstance/action, *which is clearly independent of anyone's
> belief system*, in the 'real' world before being convinced that the
> division of telicity into telic ~ atelic needs to be amended.
Ray makes a good argument, I think.  At least as
far as natlangs go.

> ------------------------------
>
And Rosta replied:
>
> 'Anti-telic' sounds very much like 'eternal', which could
> obviously be used for 'platonic' statements like "2+2=4" or "a
> square has four sides", but could conceivably be used for things
> like "I am/was born in 1967" or "I am father of Edwin", both of
> which statements arguably will be true forever and slighly more
> arguably have been true forever. Or, more poetrically, "X and Y
> are soulmates". Or statements about other worlds: "Sherlock
> Holmes is a detective". Or even "Achilles kills Hector" (with
> tense in our world, not the Iliad's).
>
> I'm sure(ish) I've read somewhere of an 'eternal' tense/aspect in
> some natlang, but Comrie's _Tense_ and _Aspect_ do not list
> 'eternal' in the index.
I suggest that there might be a "transcendent"
or "sublime" tense or aspect.  And if not, why not?


> > Sai Emrys wrote:
> >  > On 7/11/06, R A Brown wrote:
> >  >
> >  >> But can _anything_ continue indefinitely in a temporal universe?
> >  >
> >  > Hey mon, that's your belief system.
>
> (1) Even in a worldview in which time is bounded, 'eternal' could
> be defined as 'coextensive with all time'.
The idea of eternal is, I think, ususally held to be
"transcending time" rather than merely "from
beginning to end".

The following, which will be familiar to many, does
express at least half of this idea:

"As it was in the beginning,
is now, and ever shall be,
world without end.
Amen!"

A cynic might say that that's because altho we can
acknowledge that we once were not, most of us find
it impossible or repugnant to imagine that we have to
sometime cease to be.

"When you're young, you know you're immortal;
when you're old, you rather hope you are not."
I forget who said that ...


> (2) We can easily conceive of the eternal, so there is no reason
> why a human language (whether con or nat) cannot have a
> tense/aspect for it.
I agree.


> --And.
>
> ------------------------------
Sally Caves replied:
>
> Perhaps the language in question would set its sites (sights?)
> a little lower, and have something continue, like a machine,
> long after one was dead.
> But that is already be covered by the atelic.  The eternal
> nature of God might suit the anti-telic, which would be used
> for spiritual purposes.  In such a culture, though, perhaps
> God is seen as continuing within time.  The "timelessness" of
> God is a Christian concept.
This idea predates Christianity by at least half
a millennium, and more likely by two millennia.


> Maybe these people have a
> different theology.
>
> ------------------------------
Eldin Raigmore replied:
>
> On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 13:58:51 +0100, And Rosta wrote:
>
> >'Anti-telic' sounds very much like 'eternal', which could obviously be
> >used for 'platonic' statements like "2+2=4" or "a square has
> four sides",
> >but could conceivably be used for things like "I am/was born in 1967"
> >or "I am father of Edwin", both of which statements arguably
> will be true
> >forever and slighly more arguably have been true forever.
>
> How are those remarks related to the term "gnomic" and its meaning?
>
> "Gnomic" applies to general background knowledge that the speaker knows,
> and thinks many people know, and thinks the addressee _should_ know -- at
> least from the moment of speaking onward.  So the gnomic clause, in the
> speaker's opinion, has been true for a long time (if not necessarily
> forever) and will remain true for a long time (if not necessarily
> forever) -
> - probably for the speaker's and addressee's entire lifetimes.
>
> >Or, more
> >poetrically, "X and Y are soulmates". Or statements about other
> >worlds: "Sherlock Holmes is a detective". Or even "Achilles
> kills Hector"
> >(with tense in our world, not the Iliad's).
> >
> >I'm sure(ish) I've read somewhere of an 'eternal' tense/aspect in some
> >natlang, but Comrie's _Tense_ and _Aspect_ do not list 'eternal' in the
> >index.
>
> "Aorist" comes from words meaning "without boundary" or "without
> horizon".
> Usually we see "aoristIC" used to mean "perfectIVE"; but aren't gnomic
> clauses often aorist or aoristic? The Wikipedia article lists
> three "gnomic
> tenses"; "gnomic present", "gnomic future", and "gnomic aorist".  (Which
> means they think "aorist" is a "tense", whereas "aoristIC" is an
> "aspect".)
>
> >>Sai Emrys wrote:
> >>>On 7/11/06, R A Brown wrote:
> >>>>But can _anything_ continue indefinitely in a temporal universe?
> >>>Hey mon, that's your belief system.
> >
> >(1) Even in a worldview in which time is bounded, 'eternal' could be
> >defined as 'coextensive with all time'.
>
> Good point.
>
> >(2) We can easily conceive of the eternal, so there is no reason why a
> >human language (whether con or nat) cannot have a tense/aspect for it.
>
> If they don't often speak of it, they are unlikely to
> _grammaticalize_ it;
> there is unlikely to be _morphology_ for it unless either they
> speak of it
> often, ...
I think you're right.


> ... or the morphology for it is an "accidental side effect" (so to
> speak) of combining morphologies for other tenses and/or aspects of which
> they _do_ often speak.
Hmmm, does this happen?  They might simply think such
a combination ungrammatical.


> Do most peoples frequently speak of the eternal?  Have most peoples
> frequently spoken of the eternal?
I think so, much more so than now.  But who knows?


> ------------------------------
Ray Brown replied:
>
> Andreas Johansson wrote:
>  > Quoting Sai Emrys:
> [snip]
>  >>And even 'big crunch' ways, AFAIK it's just that we have no way to
>  >>know what'd happen afterwards (ditto pre-'big bang'). Might be
>  >>cyclical on a grand scale.
>  >
>  > I'll just add that in orthodox theory, there *is* no before the big
> bang, and
>  > similarly no after the big crunch. Time itself starts and ends in
> these points.
>
> That is my understanding of the theory also. But I have heard
> speculations like Sai's as well. But, as I have already written, even
> the 'cyclic on the grand scale' still limits time and space in _our_
> universe to one cycle.
> ================================
> Eldin Raigmore wrote:
> > On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 13:58:51 +0100, And Rosta wrote:
> >
> >>'Anti-telic' sounds very much like 'eternal',
>
> It does, doesn't it? Which was the point I was asking about. Tho my
> _question_ was strangely interpreted as my foisting my belief system
> onto a grammar. Bizarre.
Perhaps you forgot that this was just a joke, Ray?


> >>which could obviously be
> >>used for 'platonic' statements like "2+2=4" or "a square has
> four sides",
>
> Tho strictly that assumes a Platonic view of reality_   :)
Exactly so!


> >>but could conceivably be used for things like "I am/was born in 1967"
> >>or "I am father of Edwin", both of which statements arguably
> will be true
> >>forever and slighly more arguably have been true forever.
> >
> > How are those remarks related to the term "gnomic" and its meaning?
>
> Good question! "I was born in 1967" arguably remains true while the
> earth lasts. In a sense, I guess, it would remain true even if the sun
> becomes a red giant and swallows up the earth.
Sure eternally true, and eternally unimportant! ;-)
Just like the birth or death of any one of us, in
the vast scheme of things.  Good job for most of
us that we look at things from a slightly more
personal point of view, and believe that our gods
also take a personal interest in our little affairs.
Much more comforting!  I used to wonder at the
prevalence of theologies and cosmogonies in SF
and fantasy fiction; I suspect however that a
universe that's not personally invested in us would
be a bit too bleak for most of us to stomach.


> > "Gnomic" applies to general background knowledge that the
> speaker knows,
>
> Gnomic:
> "Denoting an aspectual form expressing a general or universal truth."
> [Trask]
>
> But telic and atelic is about _goals_, that's what the words mean (Gr.
> telos = goal). I assumed that by introducing a third term 'anti-telic'
> Sai was suggesting an action/event/circumstance that could specifically
> have no goal that would ever bring it to a conclusion. But what has "
> expressing a general or universal truth" got to do with the presence or
> absence of a goal?
Tell me about "teleology", Ray?  When I hear this term,
I think first of Teilhard de Chardin, and the notion that
the universe has capital-P Purpose.  Should we understand
Greek "telos" to mean "purpose, reason for doing/being"
as well as "goal, desired state of affairs"?


> I'm confused.
>
> We have aspectual labels 'telic', 'atelic' & we have 'gnomic'. So what
> is exactly is 'anti-telic'? (NB - a genuine question!)
>
> [snip]
>
> >
> >
> >>Or, more
> >>poetrically, "X and Y are soulmates". Or statements about other
> >>worlds: "Sherlock Holmes is a detective". Or even "Achilles
> kills Hector"
> >>(with tense in our world, not the Iliad's).
>
> The last example is surely the narrative use of the present, as tho the
> action is happening before the listener's eyes, so to speak. It's
> ancient and found in many (all?) cultures. It does not seem to me
> relevant to this argument, especially as 'killing' must be telic  :)
Historic present is certainly common, tho not available
to languages in which tense is either absent or only
exceptionally expressed.  Arguably, for example, Malay
has no tenses, altho it does have adverbs of time.  They
are only used when necessary to supply information not
given by context.  And you can't use "sekarang" (now)
or "sedang" (presently) figuratively, to say, eg:
"Hector and Achilles do fierce battle.  Achilles thrusts,
Hector parries;  Hector counter-attacks, and Achilles
evades the blow.  *Now, Achilles slays Hector with a
mighty stroke."


> >>I'm sure(ish) I've read somewhere of an 'eternal' tense/aspect in some
> >>natlang, but Comrie's _Tense_ and _Aspect_ do not list 'eternal' in the
> >>index.
>
> Of 'gnomic' Trask writes: "Very few languages seem to have a distinctive
> form exclusively for expressing gnomic aspect; most often, as in
> English, the morphologically simplest form of verbs and sentences
> are used."
>
> It does imply that a few languages may have specifically gnomic forms.
> But did Sai mean simply 'gnomic' when he said 'anti-telic'? I do not
> know. If he did, then I've been "boxing shadows" again   ;)

But what interesting shadows! ;-)


> > "Aorist" comes from words meaning "without boundary" or
> "without horizon".
> > Usually we see "aoristIC" used to mean "perfectIVE"; but aren't gnomic
> > clauses often aorist or aoristic? The Wikipedia article lists
> three "gnomic
> > tenses"; "gnomic present", "gnomic future", and "gnomic
> aorist".  (Which
> > means they think "aorist" is a "tense", whereas "aoristIC" is
> an "aspect".)
>
> Yes, "aorist" is a confusing term and I agree with Comrie that in
> linguistic discussion it is best avoided. "Aorist(ic)" does mean
> 'perfective' _aspect_ when we are speaking of the aorist subjunctive of
> modern & ancient Greek, and of the aorist optative, aorist imperative,
> aorist infinitive & aorist participle of ancient Greek. But when we
> speak of the 'aorist indicative tense' of Greek (ancient or modern) we
> mean the past perfective tense.
Isn't it best to learn these differences, and use the term
exactly as the Greeks did of their own language; whilst
using different and less potentially-ambiguous terms when
discussing other languages?


> When 'aorist' is used in the description of any other language it
> appears to mean just about any verbal feature the describer chooses!
A good reason to eschew its use.


> In ancient Greek, the most common tense used for gnomic statements was
> the present indicative. But the aorist indicative was also used - known
> as the 'gnomic aorist' - but is normally translated into a simple
> English present. There are some rare instances of the perfect indicative
> (perfect aspect, present time) being used gnomically. I am not sure
> where the Wikipedia writer got the 'future' from; I am not aware of the
> future indicative being used this way in Greek.
>
> [snip]
> >>(1) Even in a worldview in which time is bounded, 'eternal' could be
> >>defined as 'coextensive with all time'.
> >
> > Good point.
>
> It could be, but that is not the way it is understood in some
> philosophic and religious systems. But 'anti-telic', as I understand it,
> would only be appropriate if "all time" is limitless, i.e. goes on for
> ever, and ever, and ever .........
No, if all time is limitless and goes on for ever,
that ought to be "atelic" = unbounded.  "Antitelic"
wants using only outside bounded domains,
whether those bounds be of time or space or
any other mensurable category.


> But even if 'eternal' is so defined as 'coextensive with all time', then
> we would still need another term to define the notion of 'not bound by
> space or time' even if one thought that such a notion was nonsense...
That would be "antitelic".


> ... If the second meaning is "not allowed" then some one is foisting
> their view point onto the semantics of a language.
;-)


> >>(2) We can easily conceive of the eternal, so there is no reason why a
> >>human language (whether con or nat) cannot have a tense/aspect for it.
>
> But what is meant by 'eternal'? If we mean 'gnomic' then it would seem
> that a few natlangs (and probably conlangs) do have such forms, but it
> is not common.
You've mentioned Greek; what other natlangs do this?


[snip]
>
> > Do most peoples frequently speak of the eternal?  Have most peoples
> > frequently spoken of the eternal?
>
> No.
>
> Come to that, how many languages actually mark telicity?
Now there's a good question.


> ... I read that
> Finnish does in that the object is accusative if the verb is telic and
> partitive if it is atelic. I do not know how true this is; but if
> Finnish does mark telecity, has it ever felt felt the need for
> 'anti-telic' verbs?
>
> What about other natlangs that mark telicity?
>
> Ray
> ------------------------------
>
And Rosta replied:
> R A Brown, On 11/07/2006 19:59:
> > Eldin Raigmore wrote:
> >> On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 13:58:51 +0100, And Rosta wrote:
> >>
> >>> 'Anti-telic' sounds very much like 'eternal',
> >
> > It does, doesn't it? Which was the point I was asking about. Tho my
> > _question_ was strangely interpreted as my foisting my belief system
> > onto a grammar. Bizarre.
> >
> >>> which could obviously be used for 'platonic' statements like "2+2=4"
> >>> or "a square has four sides",
> >
> > Tho strictly that assumes a Platonic view of reality_   :)
> >
> >>> but could conceivably be used for things like "I am/was born in 1967"
> >>> or "I am father of Edwin", both of which statements arguably will be
> >>> true forever and slighly more arguably have been true forever.
> >>
> >> How are those remarks related to the term "gnomic" and its meaning?
> >
> > Good question! "I was born in 1967" arguably remains true while the
> > earth lasts. In a sense, I guess, it would remain true even if the sun
> > becomes a red giant and swallows up the earth.
> >
> >> "Gnomic" applies to general background knowledge that the
> speaker knows,
> >
> > Gnomic:
> > "Denoting an aspectual form expressing a general or universal truth."
> > [Trask]
> >
> > But telic and atelic is about _goals_, that's what the words mean (Gr.
> > telos = goal). I assumed that by introducing a third term 'anti-telic'
> > Sai was suggesting an action/event/circumstance that could specifically
> > have no goal that would ever bring it to a conclusion. But what has "
> > expressing a general or universal truth" got to do with the presence or
> > absence of a goal?
> >
> > I'm confused.
> >
> > We have aspectual labels 'telic', 'atelic' & we have 'gnomic'. So what
> > is exactly is 'anti-telic'? (NB - a genuine question!)
>
> It's a good question. Telicity has to do with having intrinsic boundaries
> (& is akin to countability in nouns).
>
> telic = having intrinsic boundaries
> atelic [standard sense] = lacking intrinsic boundaries
>
> But one could draw the following trichotomy:
>
> telic = having intrinsic boundaries
> 'atelic' = having extrinsic boundaries
> 'antitelic = lacking boundaries of any sort (which entails, I
> think, 'eternal')
Makes sense to me.


> >>> Or, more poetrically, "X and Y are soulmates". Or statements about
> >>> other worlds: "Sherlock Holmes is a detective". Or even "Achilles
> >>> kills Hector" (with tense in our world, not the Iliad's).
> >
> > The last example is surely the narrative use of the present, as tho the
> > action is happening before the listener's eyes, so to speak. It's
> > ancient and found in many (all?) cultures. It does not seem to me
> > relevant to this argument, especially as 'killing' must be telic  :)
>
> Change the example to "Achilles is the slayer of Hector" (i.e.
> keeping the intended utterance meaning unchanged, but removing
> the distracting sentence meaning that gives rise to Ray's
> interpretation). In our world, in which Achilles and Hector are
> figures of legend, the state of affairs "A is slayer of H" does
> not seem to have temporal boundaries.
I don't know about that.  Even tho the time of this
alternate, legendary world is not our time, it still
has, and is ordered by, its own internal time.

Once Achilles was slain, in that world of leg-
end (aka "foot"), we'd have to say instead:
"Achilles was the slayer of Hector", wouldn't we?


[snip]
> > But even if 'eternal' is so defined as 'coextensive with all
> time', then
> > we would still need another term to define the notion of 'not bound by
> > space or time' even if one thought that such a notion was nonsense. If
> > the second meaning is "not allowed" then some one is foisting
> their view
> > point onto the semantics of a language.
>
> By my lights, 'not bound by space or time' is better than
> 'coextensive with all time' as a definition of 'eternal' (and as
> a characterization of the various examples I gave).
Yes.


[snip]
> >> Do most peoples frequently speak of the eternal?  Have most peoples
> >> frequently spoken of the eternal?
> >
> > No.
>
> I think the answer is surely Yes, since the sorts of examples I
> gave are commonplace in quotidian discourse. That doesn't mean
> there's a functional pressure for a special
> tense/aspect/aktionsart for eternals, though, since any
> tense/aspect will do to express eternals so long as it doesn't
> involve perfectivity and doesn't involve a tense that excludes
> eternality. (This last point presupposes some sort of functional
> equivalence between "all time" and "outside time".)
>
> --And.
>
> ------------------------------
Regards,
Yahya

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.10/385 - Release Date: 11/7/06

Reply