Re: TYPOLOGY: (conlangs and natlangs): "Tense-Prominent" vs "Aspect-Prominent"
|From:||Roger Mills <rfmilly@...>|
|Date:||Wednesday, August 16, 2006, 16:18|
Eldin Raigmore wrote:
> 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-
> 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?
>Although tense and aspect are both optional in spoken and informal Kash,
tense is usually marked in formal usages. So it would be 4a, I guess.
Aspect, when it appears, would be indicated by adverbials, not in the
morphology. As I've said before, I don't really understand how aspect
works..........:-( Kash is more or less modelled on Indonesian, but with
some tweaks (like tense markers and noun cases).
Gwr, as it develops, is probably a 4 -- T&A are marked by adverbials, but
they are always optional. It is a high isolating lang., on the model of
Chinese or Vietnamese, as I understand them.
Neither Kash nor Gwr require evidentials; I'm aware of them from a nodding
acquaintance with Amer.Indian languages. There's always the possibility
that my third Cindu language, Prevli, could with a little more study on my
part, include aspect (realis vs. irrealis??) and perhaps evidentials too.