Re: TYPOLOGY: (conlangs and natlangs): "Tense-Prominent" vs "Aspect-Prominent"
|From:||Jörg Rhiemeier <joerg_rhiemeier@...>|
|Date:||Wednesday, August 16, 2006, 10:01|
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 20:05:29 -0400, 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?
My earlier conlangs were clearly (1.) tense-prominent as I was unaware of the
category of aspect.
Old Albic marks verbs for both aspect and - in the imperfective aspect -
tense (the perfective aspect has no tense marking). So it is both
(3.) tense-prominent and aspect-prominent, perhaps slightly more the latter
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf