Re: TYPOLOGY: (conlangs and natlangs): "Tense-Prominent" vs "Aspect-Prominent"

Eldin:

You need to look at this book:

Bhat, D. N. S. 1999. The prominence of tense, aspect, and mood. John
Benjamins. ISBN: 155619935X.

Here is the publisher's blurb:

"The book puts forth an exciting hypothesis for the typologist. Its
major claim is that languages can generally be regarded as belonging
to a tense-prominent, aspect-prominent or mood-prominent language
type. This grouping can be based upon the relative prominence that
languages attach to one or the other of the three verbal categories,
namely tense, aspect and mood, by grammaticalizing the chosen category
to a greater degree than others, and by making it more obligatory,
more systematic and more pervasive than others. The grouping, however,
involves a gradation, as is indeed the case with other typological
groupings, with some languages manifesting the relevant characteristic
more strikingly than others. There are several characteristics that
can be correlated with the relative prominence that languages attach
to verbal categories. For example, tense-prominent languages tend to
have mostly active but not stative verbs. They also tend to keep
adjectives as a distinct category, or group them with nouns but not
with verbs. Verbal forms used for foregrounding generally belong to
the most prominent verbal category. These and other similar
correlations make this typological classification worth pursuing. The
book also contains a descriptive study of the three verbal
categories."

Dirk

On 8/15/06, Eldin Raigmore <eldin_raigmore@...> wrote:
> It seems that some languages nearly require nearly every verb -- or, at
> least, the nucleus of nearly every main clause -- to be inflected for
> Tense.
>
> For lack of knowing the real terminology, (if there even is any), let me
> call these "Tense-Prominent Languages".
>
> It seems that some languages nearly require nearly every verb -- or, at
> least, the nucleus of nearly every main clause -- to be inflected for
> Aspect.
>
> For lack of knowing the real terminology, (if there even is any), let me
> call these "Aspect-Prominent Languages".
>
> It seems several "Aspect-Prominent" Languages are _not_ "Tense-Prominent".
> It seems several "Tense-Prominent" Languages are _not_ "Aspect-Prominent".
>
> How about your conlangs?  Would you say they are:
> 1. Very Tense-Prominent but not very Aspect-Prominent?
> 2. Very Aspect-Prominent but not very Tense-Prominent?
> 3. Or that they are both quite Tense-Prominent and quite Aspect-Prominent?
> 3a. Nevertheless, rather more Tense-Prominent than Aspect-Prominent?
> 3b. Nevertheless, rather more Aspect-Prominent than Tense-Prominent?
> 3c. About equally Aspect-Prominent as Tense-Prominent?
> 4. Would you say they are neither very Tense-Prominent nor very Aspect-
> Prominent?
> 4a. Nevertheless, rather more Tense-Prominent than Aspect-Prominent?
> 4b. Nevertheless, rather more Aspect-Prominent than Tense-Prominent?
> 4c. About equally Aspect-Prominent as Tense-Prominent?
>
> -------
>
> That might not be all there is to it at all.
> Languages with evidentials may be "Mood-Prominent", or at
> least "Evidential-Prominent", rather than either Aspect-Prominent or Tense-
> Prominent.
>
> Does your conlang require that any speaker mention how he/she knows what
> he/she is saying happened, but hardly ever require at that they mention
> when it happened (or how often it happened, or how long it took to happen,
> or whatever)?
>
> --------
>
> Whatever your answers to the above questions, can you also answer this one?
> Where did you get that idea to put it in your conlang?
> Is your conlang a lot like any natlang or any group of natlangs in that
> way?
>
> ---
> Thanks,
> ---
> eldin
>

Reply