Re: tense marking and typology

"J.Barefoot" wrote:
> where different word orders mean different tenses. Is there any precedent
> for this?
I don't know of any precedent, but it's an utterly fascinating system,
nevertheless.  However, I doubt that such a system exists in any
natlang, especially since many languages tend to have some form of
fronting.

> Does it violate typology rules completely to allow SVO, VSO and
> SOV in the same language
Not at all.  Many languages are free-order, after all, allowing any
order.  SVO/VSO/SOV wouldn't be too surprising, just a free word-order
language that requires subjects to precede objects.

> Also, I would be thrilled if someone could see fit to
> share some info on tense systems other than the usual European
> past-present-future.
Well, _tense_ is, by definition, time, but not all languages have
tense.  A number of languages merely indicate aspect (e.g., perfect,
progressive, habitual, etc.).  However, the European three-time is not
the only system.  A number of language have past and non-past, for
instance.  And others have more than three.  I read of a Bantu language
with the following system (IIRC)
Remote Past (before the previous day)
Distant Past (the previous day)
Recent Past (earlier that day)
Immediate Past (just happened)
Present
Immediate Future (in just a moment)
Near Future (later that day)
Distant Future (the next day)
Remote Future (after the next day)

--
Happy that Nation, - fortunate that age, whose history is not diverting
-- Benjamin Franklin
http://members.tripod.com/~Nik_Taylor/X-Files/
http://members.tripod.com/~Nik_Taylor/Books.html
ICQ #: 18656696
AIM screen-name: NikTailor