li [Eldin Raigmore] mi tulis la
> ...
> 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?
For Sasxsek, the answer would have to be 4 since neither tense nor
aspect are marked on the verb. Adverbs are used to mark both and only
used when needed for clarity. We could use the top line of this message
for an example.
(simple past)
li [Eldin Raigmore] mi tulis la
NAME Eldin Raigmore before write QUOTE...
Eldin Raigmore wrote ...
(unmarked)
li [Eldin Raigmore] tulis la
NAME Eldin Raigmore write QUOTE...
Eldin Raigmore [writes/is writing/wrote/was writing/will
write/etc.] ..
(past perfect)
li [Eldin Raigmore] ti mi tulis la
NAME Eldin Raigmore then before write QUOTE...
Eldin Raigmore had written ...
(habitual)
li [Eldin Raigmore] ki tulis la
NAME Eldin Raigmore always write QUOTE...
Eldin Raigmore always writes ...
li [Eldin Raigmore] dini tulis
NAME Eldin Raigmore day+ly write
Eldin Raigmore writes daily.
> -------
> 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)?
No. It's no required.
> --------
> 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?
It's not based on any one language or group of languages.