Re: Anti-telic?

On 7/13/06, R A Brown <ray@...> wrote:
> Clearly you can claim the universe is eternal or that it is not eternal.
> The English language, as I see it, is quite capable of letting you do
> this unambiguously. This does not, as far as I can see, require the need
> for any 'anti-telic' verb phrase aspect.
I didn't say it was a *need*. There are few things that are. Nonlinear
languages certainly aren't a *need*, but when I ask if they're
possible or how they could be made, that doesn't really come into it.
Your replies heavily remind me of the early threads on that - you seem
to be exclusively analyzing things from the telic/atelic only
perspective, in that they can account for it - sure they can, I never
said not - without really looking at 'what if you had a third'.

To clarify one point on this:
Current atelic is... agnostic about endpoints. It IMPLIES that it
could end, but it doesn't outright require it.

A tripartite system (telic/atelic/antitelic) would have a narrower use
of atelic, i.e. for things that strictly CAN have an end, but don't
have to, and might not. But for things that CAN'T (or that you're
phrasing as such - viz lying and pragmatics and such), you wouldn't be
able to use that, and would need to use the antitelic instead.

Whereas with a bipartite system, atelic includes things that CAN'T end
by adding adjectives or adverbs - e.g. "they'll never stop dating".
(Note btw, I only intend the dating-as-a-relationship-verb sense, not
'any particular date'. I think they're fairly distinct meanings for
this.)

Using atelic in that way is sortof irrealis I think (not sure if
irrealis is the grammatically correct term for what I mean though).

Another way to put it: "Will it end?"
telic: yes
atelic: it might
antitelic: no

> That is the rub. It seems to me that stating that something positively
> can not ever be stopped once it has started _is_ to adopt a metaphysical
> position.
Okay, now I see.

Yes, I concede that. Yes, having an antitelic does IMPLY a
metaphysical position that some things can indeed continue forever.

However, attacking my metaphysical position - a discussion I'm not
interested in - in no way attacks the ability to STATE things that are
congruent with my position, even if you philosophically or
astrophysically disagree, or even if it's indeed false.

In fact, I can completely concede (for the sake of this discussion)
that the universe will end 1000 years from now in a blip that wipes
out everything yea unto time, and still say that I want to express
something as going on indefinitely.

> > e.g. the existence of the universe,
>
> ....will come to an end, according to some. Indeed, some see the
> creation & evolution of the universe as a telic process.
See above.

> > humans dating (exaggeration - eg "they're
> > sooooo cuuuuute together it's impossible they'll break up"),
>
> Each date does not go on for ever. A date is a telic process. We may
> have, and often do have, an series of individual dates. "He is dating
> Lois" is atelic, but "He has a date with Lois this evening" is telic, as
> I understand the terms.
See above; you're using the wrong sense of dating.

Also, I agree that humans dating in the non-exaggerative sense I gave
would be normal atelic.

> Yes, gnomic is to do with _states_ whereas, I am discovering, telic &
> atelic are to do with processes.
Quite so.

> > 3. Antitelic
>
> I do not understand what point 3 is.
It's a typo. :-P

> > 4. They're different grammatical categories
>
> Semantic as well, surely. Any explicit grammaticalization of these
> categories seem to be be related to syntax.
Certainly. Though there are other ways (eg affixes) to express
telicity, so I'm keeping it in the abstract.

> > The point about mass vs count nouns seems spurious to me; just because
> > they happen to be analagous in some ways does not mean they are
> > NECESSARILY linked or that the limitation of one implies the
> > limitation of the other.
>
> I do not think that either And or I said they were NECESSARILY linked.
> But I agree with And that they are analogous in certain ways. Analogies
> are useful, I think, in that we can examine how far they are similar and
> in what ways they differ. Can a similar trichotomy be applied to the
> concept of 'countability' as that which you are suggesting for
> 'telicity'? If the answer is "yes", then surely it helps understand what
> you are getting at. But if the answer is "no", then we ask 'Why not?',
> 'What are the differences between the concepts of countability &
> telicity?', 'Is the trichotomy proposed for telicity valid.' IMO
> analogies can be useful as long as, of course, we remember that they are
> analogies.
OK, I agree with you that far. It seems clear though that telicity and
countability are fairly different beasts...

> But as I read more, I am finding that telicity is a feature of the verb
> _and_ its arguments. The concept of countability does seem to figure to
> some extent; for example, I discover that "eat apples" is atelic, but
> "eat two apples" is telic.
Hmm, true. Antitelic would need a patient that can keep it up
indefinitely - indeed, forever. Maybe one could do that with two
apples (eat one half of what you have every hour? regurgitate ad
nauseam [sic]?), but it'd be easier to think of with a limitless
supply... or with verbs that don't consume [again, sic] their
patients...

> But, I stress again, my comments about 'anti-telic' relate only to
> _natlangs_. You did ask "Any natlang or conlang examples of this?" I
> know of no natlang examples.
Understood. It seemed that earlier you were arguing that it was indeed
impossible at all.

For that matter, viz my statements above, I think you're wrong about
saying that it would be impossible to have in a natlang. Obviously
there have been (and exist) many many languages whose cultures know
nothing of the metaphysical / duration of the universe arguments
you've mentioned. :-P

> I have made it clear more than once, I do _not_ say the idea in invalid
> in a conlang. That would be foolish. After all, is not one reason for
> creating a conlang to experiment with different or unusual ideas. Are
> there, indeed, any conlang examples of this?
I'm still waiting for any examples. :-P

Reply