Re: Using Case to Show Tense
| From: | Edward Miller <sewerbird@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Wednesday, March 23, 2005, 20:52 |
|---|
Me again!
Patrick Littell wrote:
> Wow, I like this a lot. I don't think ANAD at all! At least, not
> where the tense is *deduced* from the case in such a way!
Henrik Theiling wrote:
> I also like it.
I'm glad to see it meets approval ;-)
>Patrick Littell wrote:
>Tense S A P
>Past p n p
>Present n a p
>Future a a n
Regarding this, it certainly would make the system easier to learn.
Although I will most likely stick with all the cases being explicit,
this seems a good streamlining. It'll basically come down to some
careful consideration: it is an easier system with this small change,
but it all depends on how I handle aspect in the language. Good
suggestion!
Henrik Theiling wrote:
> Let me see, the original was:
> > Tense System S A P
> > Past Erg X Y X
> > Present Tri Y X Z
> > Future Nom Z Z Y
>
> This is also nice, because any of S, A and P get get assigned X, Y and
> Z. :-) Very obfuscated -- I think I like this more.
Of course: I'm notoriously bad at introducing irregularities into
things, so it worked out nice. :-D
I wonder how many grammatical items you can express using the same
three case markings... *evil laugh*. The main issue lies in the human
mind parsing it all >.<
I suppose I could always make a conculture made of lilliputians with
heads the size of melons?
...maybe not.
Concerning word order, I wonder if the positions of the elements would
change based on tense: because no two suffixes are repeated in a
clause, word order isn't theoretically required if all my cases are
explicit. If I employ person marking, the need for word order
diminishes even more.
Aesthetically, I like SOV word order most. This is probably due to how
cool German word order is ^_^;;.
In ending, I would also appreciate suggestions on introducing aspect
into this system: my design goal for the inflectional aspect (pardon
the pun) of the language is to indicate as much information about the
verb as possible on its nouns, without making the nouns look like
Y'upik Eskimo.... I've grouped two sets of aspects, paired into three.
My current task is to alter the tense system above somehow to indicate
aspect too. I may instead put person marking on the verb and show
aspect through that: so many options!
Group 1
Imperfective
Inceptive
Progressive
Group 2
Perfective
Completive
Perfect
Thanks for the support, and I'll keep you posted too!
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 12:50:27 +0100, Henrik Theiling <theiling@...> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Patrick Littell <puchitao@...> writes:
> > Wow, I like this a lot. I don't think ANAD at all! At least, not
> > where the tense is *deduced* from the case in such a way!
>
> I also like it.
>
> Patrick: you should give the name of the original poster ('twas Edward).
>
> > Here's my thoughts on possible streamlinings:
> >...
> >
> > Tense S A P
> > Past p n p
> > Present n a p
> > Future a a n
>
> This looks very nice, yes. :-)
>
> Let me see, the original was:
> > Tense System S A P
> > Past Erg X Y X
> > Present Tri Y X Z
> > Future Nom Z Z Y
>
> This is also nice, because any of S, A and P get get assigned X, Y and
> Z. :-) Very obfuscated -- I think I like this more.
>
> > Hmm, what else. Given the split-ergative system, I'd also lose the
> > verb-medial order and go with verb-initial or verb-final.
>
> Why?
>
> > If you're looking at case-suffixes, I'd say go with verb-final order
> > and let the speaker order the nominals as they please. Or... maybe
> > require an order in which the tense can be deduced from the first
> > word.
>
> HAHA! :-)
>
> >...
> > Say that you have the following personal prefixes:
> >
> > Case p = 1st: mu-, 2nd: yu-, 3rd hu-
> > Case n = 1st: ma-, 2nd: ya-, 3rd ha-
> > Case a = 1st: mi-, 2nd: yi-, 3rd hi-
> >
> > As soon as the sentence begins, you can deduce the
> > transitivity/intransitivity of the verb, the participants, *and* the
> > tense.
>
> This is funny! :-)
>
> **Henrik
>
Replies