Re: Anti-telic?

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.

> 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.

> 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 <ray@...> 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.

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.   ;)

 >(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.

Might be cyclical - but, in such a picture, the universe as we know it
has a beginning & end.

 > 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.

[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.

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
==================================
ray@carolandray.plus.com
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
"Ein Kopf, der auf seine eigene Kosten denkt,
wird immer Eingriffe in die Sprache thun."
"A mind that thinks at its own expense
will always interfere with language".
J.G. Hamann, 1760

Reply