Re: Anti-telic?

Sai Emrys wrote:
[snip]

> 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.
The point, surely, is that *a*telic makes _no_ implication about a goal
or endpoint. It does not involve any goal nor endpoint in its semantic
structure, but denotes actions that are realized as soon as they begin.

> 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.
This seems to me to be not so much narrowing the meaning of 'atelic',
but as changing its meaning. It's now got some implication concerning
the nature of the endpoint or goal involved in the semantic structure.

> 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.
This seems to me to be altering the telic ~ atelic thing. Telic does
indeed make a semantic implication about an endpoint or goal, i.e. that
we believe the action is _tending towards_ a goal and the action is not
fully realized until the goal is reached. It does not, of course, mean
that the goal MUST be reached.

"He is eating two apples" is telic. As soon as he begins eating the
first apple, the process is not realized. The process is not realized
until he has finished consuming the second apple. In practice, of
course, he might choke on the first apple and never complete the
process. Our original sentence doesn't suddenly become atelic because
the poor guy choked!

"He's eating apples" has no implication about any goal or endpoint. It
is realized as soon as he starts chomping the apples. (I guess pendants
will say it is not realized till he's begun his second apple - but that
simply because English has to be specific about singular or plural
nouns). We assume, of course, that this will not go on for ever, but we
make no implication one way or the other about an endpoint - it simply
is not relevant.

Some languages, I believe, use the accusative case for direct objects if
the VP has a telic meaning, but the partitive case if it is atelic.

> Whereas with a bipartite system, atelic includes things that CAN'T end
> by adding adjectives or adverbs - e.g. "they'll never stop dating".
So "He is eating apples for ever" - yes that does imply that the
endpoint will never be reached. But we could also say "He is eating an
infinite number of apples".

I guess, then, one could say that 'anti-telic' is 'telic, but implying
that the goal or endpoint is at infinity'. The process is not realized
until infinity.

As I think about it now, 'anti-telicity' seems to me to be a special
case of 'telicity' rather than a subdivision of 'telicity':
telic - implies a finite endpoint or goal - action not realized till
goal is reached;
anti-telic - implies a infinite endpoint or goal - action not realized
till goal is reached at infinity;
atelic - makes no implication about an endpoint or goal - action is
realized as soon as it begins.

> Using atelic in that way is sortof irrealis I think (not sure if
> irrealis is the grammatically correct term for what I mean though).
No one is  :)

"Irrealis" is one of those loose terms that seem to mean whatever an
author wants it to. Trask says of it: "A label often applied in a
somewhat _ad hoc_ manner to some distinctive grammatical form, most
often a verbal inflection, occurring in some language and having some
kind of connection with unreality"

> Another way to put it: "Will it end?"
> telic: yes
> atelic: it might
> antitelic: no
Yes, but currently, the answer for 'atelic' is surely "The question is
irrelevant." As we do not know the future (cf. the guy choking on his
first apple), I suggest:
Another way to put it: "Will it end?"
telic: "I think so."
atelic: "How am I supposed to know - it ain't relevant"
antitelic: "I don't think so.'

>> 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
I was not and am not attacking your metaphysical position. I do not know
it - therefore I cannot sensibly attack it, even if I wished to    :)

> 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.
I merely asked if what you were positing were possible? Asking a
question, means I am looking for an answer, not attacking a position.

I have above outlined how, it seems to me, 'anti-telic' would fit into
the pattern. On the what I have written above, we could then say that
the following are 'anti-telic';
(a) "They'll always be dating."*
(b) "They lived happily ever after."

*Changed this one slightly as "will never stop dating" has the
complication of a negative.

But the fact that (a) might well evoke a response from a cynical friend
"Uh, until he finds someone else" or "Till one of them snuffs it", shows
that it is, as you say, an exaggeration (I would not describe something
as a 'lie' unless it were said/written deliberately to mislead) and
would not be taken literally.

Example (b) is of course the stock ending of 'fairy stories'.

> 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.
You *can* say that already - the question merely is whether it does or
does not constitute a separate category which may be called 'anti-telic.'

The terms 'telic' and 'atelic' were not coined for fun or because
somebody took it into their head to consider whether actions are goal
directed or not. They were coined because certain people noticed that
there were certain syntax behaviors & constraints that seemed best
explained by these labels.

As far as a natlang is concerned, the question must surely be whether
actions expressed with the implication of an infinite endpoint exhibit
any behaviors not shared by telic and atelic VPs. If they do, then you
have proved your point.

As far as Conlangs are concerned, I have already conceded that
'anti-telic' may be a possibility. It is, therefore, up to any
Conlanger, who so wishes, to implement this in her/his own conlang.
That's one reason some people do conlang: to try out new ideas.

[snip]
>> 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.
Sorry - Perhaps my question would have been better expressed as: "But
can anything continue indefinitely our temporal universe?" I see now
that using the indefinite article rather than "a" might have given the
impression that I was questioning all con-universes. That was not my
intention.

But it was also intended as a genuine question. It seems to me that the
answer is possibly - "Well, no, not in the literal sense, but we may in
exaggeration or in story-telling or in theorizing talk of something as
tho it does."

> 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
Yes, but the idea of death & impermanence has been pretty strong in
human cultures. But the question seems to me whether 'anti-telic' VPs
have been attested in any natlangs as distinct from telic & atelic VPs.

[snip]
>
> I'm still waiting for any examples. :-P
"Sai will never stop waiting for anti-telic examples"   :-P

--
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