|From:||David Stokes <dstokes@...>|
|Date:||Saturday, November 25, 2000, 19:25|
Muke Tever wrote:
I like it. Its nice to see a change from the usual tense system. And it
seems perfectly reasonable to me, although I'm not a professional.
I was thinking about something similar for a language I'm working on. In
my case I was thinking about a change to the stem for a
certain/uncertain distinction onto which various aglutinative endings
would be piled. Thus I would get things like:
John comes(certain)-future Thursday. John and I have agreed plans.
John comes(uncertain)-future Thursday John might drop by.
The house burned(certain)-past down. I saw it.
The house burned(uncertain)-past down. I've heard a rumor.
A tree falls(uncertain)-present-indicative in the forest.
And no one is there to hear if it makes a sound.
I'm interseted to see what you do with it.
> I figured that I could throw out the notion of verb tense, and replaced it
> with something like Whorf's description of 'assertion' in Hopi, but not
> A verb can be in either of two tense/assertions (anyone who can supply
> better names, for the category or the individuals, please feel free!)
> - 'gnostic', for things that the speaker knows:
> the visible (known present),
> that in one's own thoughts,
> the planned (known future),
> remembered history (known past)
> - 'agnostic', for things that are the speaker does not know:
> the unseen (unknown present),
> other's thoughts,
> the unplanned (unknown future),
> forgotten history (unknown past).
> So, say, instead of:
> -John is coming Thursday. [present/future]
> -Are you angry with me? [present]
> -He is holding a cat. [present]
> -The house may have burnt down. [present/past]
> -I don't know the answer. [present]
> -Loose lips sink ships. [present/timeless]
> One might do:
> John comes.GN Thursday [known]
> You are angry.AGN with me? [unknown]
> He holds.GN a cat [known]
> The house burns down.AGN [unknown]
> I know.GN not the answer [unknown]
> Loose lips sink.GN ships [known]
> Note that one can know one doesn't know something. Also, the Daimyoish
> structure of the 'angry' sentence would likely be much different (emotion
> verbs will probably have to behave differently here) but it'd still be AGN.
> What do you think, sirs? Is this feasible?