Re: Góquim

Quoting "Thomas R. Wier" <trwier@...>:

> Quoting Andreas Johansson <andjo@...>:
>
> > Quoting Peter Bleackley <Peter.Bleackley@...>:
> >
> > > Staving Thomas Wier:
> > > >Quoting Christian Thalmann <cinga@...>:
> > > >
> > > > > One of the verb affixes is called "infinite".  Is that a
> > > > > typo for "infinitive", or is it some kind of tense used for
> > > > > general truths and timeless static situations?  The latter
> > > > > would be cool, but I somewhat doubt it was the intention.
> > > >
> > > >If so, the traditional name for such a tense is "gnomic".
> > >
> > > What a wonderful name for a tense! Presumably, an elvish language should
> > > always include a gnomic tense.
> >
> > Hm, unfortunately, Quenya uses a tense called "aorist" for that. And if I
> > recall my Greek correctly (fat chance!), that means etymologically much
> the
> > same as "infinite".
>
> Yes, precisely so:  Greek has a gnomic aorist. In Greek (and other
> languages with it, like Georgian), a gnomic aorist is not a formal
> morphological category, but simply a descriptor of one use of the
> aorist.  The Greek aorist has other uses as well.
The Q aorist is among other things used as infinitive and present tense.

> > My Elvish lang uses the uninflected verb for that. Given its most common
> > function, a traditionalist western philologist would undoubtedly named
> > it "imperfect".
>
> I doubt it.  "Imperfect" typically describes on-going actions which
> in principle have beginnings and ends.  Gnomic aorists refer precisely
> to circumstances which have no beginning or end.
The language in question would use the same tense/aspect in "red is a color"
and "we went to Disneyland yesterday". Since it most conspicuously contrasts
with the perfect, why shouldn't it be called imperfect?

                                                         Andreas