Thank you for contributing, Ray.
--- In conlang@yahoogroups.com, Ray Brown <ray.brown@F...> wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 5, 2005, at 06:07 , Tom Chappell wrote:
>
> [snip]
> > [TEMPORAL AUXILIARIES]
> [snip explanation about English tense system]
I see. "Will" and "Shall" are not temporal auxiliaries.
However, such animals do exist, and you kindly provided examples
below.
"Trask on 'Tense'" -- where is that available exactly?
> [snip]
> > 1) Example? The most frequently used past tense of Modern French
is the
> > composite past, made out of a form of the verb "avoir" and the
> > active-participle of the lexical verb.
>
> Passive participle, in fact.
Yes; I realized my mistake after I posted it; but by the time I
posted something else, I had realized other mistakes as well.
> The construction occurs occasionally in
> classical Latin, as I have shown two or three times in past
threads, where
> the participle always agrees in number, gender & case with the
direct
> object. In French the participle must still agree with the object
if the
> object precedes the verb.
> [snip]
> > This is analytic or periphrastic, to be sure, but does
the "avoir" count
> > as a Temporal Auxiliary here? I
> > think maybe it does not.
>
> You think correctly.
Thanks for the information.
> [snip out information-dense discussion of TMA of French]
> Just to confuse things, the simple past in English and the French
> composite past tense does have a perfective meaning. But as Trask
says:
> "NOTE: be careful not to confuse perfective aspect with perfect
aspect;
> they are entirely distinct."
What /is/ the difference?
I have read that there is a "lexical aspect", aspect from the point-
of-view of the word itself, and a "syntactic aspect", aspect from the
POV of the rest of the clause. Is one of "perfect"
vs "perfective" "lexical" and the other "syntactic"?
> [snip]
> > (It occurred to me after my original post that the participle
used in
> > French's passe' compose' might be not an active participle but a
past
> > participle.
>
> It is in fact the _perfect passive_ participle.
So, it has aspect and voice, but not tense?
>
> > English's participles are best distinguished as passive
> > vs. active, but I don't know that that's true for French.)
>
> Exactly the same. If however French uses the perfect
> _active_
> participle then the auxiliary _must_ be
> être
Intransitives have only active participles, right? Thus "I am come",
not *"I have come".
> and not avoir; also the participle must
> agree with the subject:
> je suis venu = I came; I have come
>
> If I were female, then I should write _je suis venue_.
>
> [snip]
> The problems with interpreting the French examples are
> however interesting, as I have shown above ;)
Yes, you have.
> [snip]
> > 2) Does anyone know of any natural languages where one or more
tense(s)
> > is (preferably) always (or failing that, almost always) shown by
means of
> > a Temporal Auxiliary verb?
> >
> > 3) How about NatLangs where most tenses are so shown?
>
> Yes - Welsh (and the other Insular Celtic languages).
This is cool! Thanks.
>
> In spoken Welsh practically all the tenses & moods are expressed
by using
> the verb "to be" with:
> - YN followed by the verbnoun (gerund) for non-perfect aspect.
> - WEDI (after) followed by the verbnoun (gerund) for perfect aspect.
>
> The only common exception in the south is the simple past tense
which,
> like English, is a single word:
> canais i = I sang (Welsh is VSO)
>
> But in the north, they even avoid this in speech and use instead a
strange
> formation that may give conlangers ideas:
> ddaru i mi ganu
> happened to me sing-VN (verbnoun) = singing happened to me = I
sang :)
>
> [snip]
>
> > 13) Are there NatLangs where almost all Mood or Mode is expressed
only on
> > Modal Auxiliaries?
>
> English.
Well.
> [snip]
> Gerunds, infinitives, and supines are _verbal nouns_, they are
*not*
> deverbal nouns. Confusing the two categories is not helpful.
>
> Verbal nouns are those nouns, formed from verbs, *which still
retain some
> verbal functions* - they can be given direct and indirect objects,
are
> modified by adverbs (not adjectives) and very often show tense.
>
> Deverbal nouns are, as the name implies, noun formed from verbal
bases (de
> verbo). They are purely nouns and cannot take objects; they must be
> modified by adjectives (because they are nouns, pure amd simple).
Cf:
>
> (a) After hurriedly consuming ten plates of spaghetti he was
violently
> sick.
> ADV OBJ
>
> (b) After the hurried comsumption of 10 plates of spaghetti he was
> violently sick
>
> In (a) 'consuming' is a verbal noun; we see it is a noun because it
is
> governed by the preposition 'after'. But it retains certain verbal
> functions also. In (b) consumption is a deverbal noun and behaves
as a
> noun and retains no verbal functions.
Thank you for correcting me.
I needed to know that "verbal" and "deverbal" didn't mean the same
thing.
I suppose the same is true of "adjectival" and "deadjectival"?
> Verbal nouns are usually called infinitives. In some languages like
Latin
> & English, there is another verbal noun with practically the same
meaning
> as the infinitive, but used in different situations (often in
English the
> choice is a matter of style); this is then called the gerund.
So, that's it? "A language's favorite verbal noun is called
infinitive; the runner-up is called gerund." Kind of like the
definition of "corn" -- maize here, wheat there.
> > N3) What is a supine, anyway?
>
> Strictly it is a feature of Latin grammar only. In Latin it is
possible to
> form deverbal nouns of the 4th declension; in the nominative case
they are
> identical to the masculine singular form of the perfect participle,
e.g.
> uisus = sight; auditus = heating; tactus = touch etc.
>
> In pre-classical Latin it seems they could be treated as verbal
nouns
> rather than deverbal nouns. Classical Latin retained this only with
the
> accusative case and, less commonly, the ablative in certain
restricted
> constructions.
"Accusative of purpose in -um and ablative of specification in -u",
says my Merriam Webster's Collegiate 10th Edition. Not that I knew
what that meant.
> These two relicts of the older usage are called 'supines':
> (a) the accusative could be used in association with verbs denoting
motion
> in order to express purpose. For example:
> pacem rogatum uenerunt = they have come to ask for peace.
> We see that 'rogatum' (to ask for) is a verbal noun as it has the
direct
> object 'pacem'.
> (b) the ablative could be used to qualify an adjective. For example:
> difficile est dictu quanto simus in odio = it is difficult to say
how much
> we are hated (lit: we are in hate).
> We see that 'dictu' is a verbal noun as it has the noun clause
> 'quanto....odio' as its direct object.
>
> The term supine is occasionally used in the grammars of some other
> languages for non-finite parts of the verb which vaguely resemble
in some
> way the Latin supine.
Thanks for explaining that.
So, then, most languages only have one or two kinds of verbal (not
deverbal) nouns -- infinitives for one, infinitives and gerunds for
two. Is that right?
"Supines", in other languages, are non-finite "parts" of the verb,
but not necessarily verbal nouns; and they don't necessarily resemble
Latin supines in a systematic way --- they may have only a "family
resemblance". Is that also right?
> > N4) An "agentive" noun --- what's the right way to say that?
>
> agents, actor?
Now, that one really would be a /de/verbal noun, wouldn't it?
As "employer", "employee", and "employment" are all /de/verbal nouns
derived from the verb "employ".
> [snip -- Participles are Verbal Adjectives, not Deverbal]
> > N6) Is the biggest difference between Participles Voice (Passive
vs
> > Active)?
>
> Not sure what you mean. Tense differences are quite common.
I think in English the difference between the participle "spoken" and
the participle "speaking" is one of Voice, not one of Tense or
Aspect.
Through High School I was talked at about Past and Present
Participles.
In college I started hearing about Perfect and Progressive
Participles.
It wasn't until a few years ago I started hearing about Active and
Passive Participles.
I guess what I was getting at is that in English, the Voice of the
participle makes all the difference --- the Aspect and the Tense do
not really matter.
I was wondering whether or not that was indeed the case for English.
I was also wondering whether or not there are other languages for
which for some participles the Aspect matters more than the Voice or
the Tense;
and whether there are some languages for which for some participles
the Tense matters more than the Voice or the Aspect.
> > N7) Is there a real Aspectual difference between Participles
(Perfect
> > vs Imperfect) over and above the Voice difference?
>
> Yes - in languages where aspect marking is important, for example
the Slav
> and semitic languages.
I'd love to have a specific example.
> > N8) Is there a real Tense difference between Participles (Past vs
> > Present) over and above the Voice and/or Aspect difference?
>
> Latin even had a future participle: scripturus = going to write,
about to
> write ec.
Thanks! Great example!
> [snip]
> > N9) In my original question 8), is the "content word" always or
> > almost always one that could best be, or would have to be,
translated
> > as a deverbal noun or deverbal adjective, if not a verb, in any
> > language in which the entire phrase existed as a non-analytic
lexical
> > verb?
>
> Sorry - I do not really understand the question - altho _deverbal_
is
> clearly wrong.
Yes, you are right. The question should be re-read with "verbal" in
place of "deverbal".
An example is the "verbnoun" in each of your Welsh examples above.
You seem to have indicated that it is to be thought of as a gerund.
For instance you translated "ganu" as "singing".
My question was, in Korean or other languages in which some (say)
English content-verb (like, I'm making one up here, "study") has to
be translated by a light-verb-and-content-word combination, say (I'm
still making it up) "take
>
> > [INFINITE VS FINITE VERBS AND UNTENSED VS TENSED VERBS]
> > An "infinite" form of a verb is, classically, one which does not
> > have to agree with any of its participants (a subject or one or
more
> > objects or both) in number, person, or gender.
> > A "finite" form, on the other hand, is one which must agree with
> > some participant (a subject or one or more objects or both) in
number
> > or person or gender.
> > Technically speaking, then, "classical infinitives" could have a
> > tense, aspect, voice, and mood specified.
>
> They most certainly had tense and voice in classical Latin and even
more
> so in Greek. In Greek they had aspect as well, and must surely do
in
> languages where aspect is important and marked.
>
> > Classically, then, many uses of English verbs are "infinite" forms
> > of the verb in question, although we are not taught to regard them
> > as "infinitives".
> > Mostly we think of non-tensed, non-"aspected" verbs when we think
> > of "infinite" verbs in English.
> > This is probably incorrect,
>
> The term 'infinite' is incorrect. We talk about about non-finite
verbs.
>
> [snip]
> > N10) Can anyone give me examples of Tensed Infinite Verbs?
> > I prefer multiple different forms in the same natural language,
for
> > multiple different languages; but any example at all will count as
> > a contribution.
>
> You mean:
> amare = to love
> amavisse = to have loved.
> amari = to be loved
> amatus esse = to have been loved
> ??
>
> [snip]
> > and Voice specified. In fact, I am not sure how much sense it
> > makes to call anything with an unspecified voice a Verb.
>
> You'll have problems Chinese and other Sino-Tibetan languages
then :)
>
> ta1 xie3le xin4
> he write-PERF letter = he wrote the letter
>
> xin4 xie3le = the letter was written
>
> > If the
> > Voice is open to question, then maybe it's a de-verbal Noun or
> > Adjective or Adverb or Adposition or something.
>
> Why?
>
> > [DOES THE NOTION OF "VOCAL AUXILIARY" EVEN MAKE SENSE?]
> [snip]
> > I conjecture that the idea of a "Voice" auxiliary -- an auxiliary
> > verb in an aux&lex construction whose main purpose for inclusion
> > was to carry the marking-for-voice that wasn't going to be
carried on
> > the main verb -- doesn't even make sense.
>
> Do you indeed? I do not see for the life of me why it does not make
sense.
>
> > N13) Does anyone know of, or can anyone come up with, a proof or
> > disproof?
>
> I can come up with a disproof - its called Welsh :)
>
> The auxuliary is 'cael' (get, receive) is used with the good ol'
verbnoun
> (indifferent as to voice!)
>
> Rhoedd ffilm newydd yn cael ei dangos neithiwr
> Was film new YN receiving its showing last-night = A new
film was
> being shown last night
>
> Roedd yr arian wedi cael ei gasglu ganddo fe.
> Was the money after receiving its collecting with him = The money
had
> been collected by him
>
> > NOMINALS VS VERBALS]
> > Some linguists have proposed that the fundamental division between
> > Nominals and Verbals is this:
> Which linguists?
>
> > Nominals denote whatever must be bounded in Space;
> > Verbals denote whatever must be bounded in Time.
>
> Umm - no place for God then. Besides I thought modern physics held
that
> time is dependent upon space.
>
> Ray
> ===============================================
>
http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
> ray.brown@f...
> ===============================================
> MAKE POVERTY HISTORY