Re: OT: ago

Friends,

> _All_ grammatical categories, including the so-called "agoative", are
> _abstractions_ and therefore artificial. But they are certainly not
> arbitrary (except, may be, "agoative"    :)
The last thing we need is a category of one, "agoative".

> Nor is 'ago' exactly unique. There are other words that behave in a
> similar fashion. Our attention has already been drawn to 'away' as:
> He lives three miles away.
> She lives far away.
However, none of them seem to have that one restriction that it must
precede a qualifier like 'I went many years ago'.  While 'I went ago'
never occurs in idiomatic English, this is probably not because of a
grammatical constraint but rather because it implies traveling through
time backwards.  In that sense, there's nothing special about the word
save that we have not yet discovered its myriad uses in common speech.
 Personally, I can't wait.  :-)

>
> Later in this thread we have 'hence' (not common now) drawn to our
> attention:
> I will go there three weeks hence.
> He will be here not long hence.
Are 'I came hence' and 'I will come thence' alright?  I'd accept it.
Seems these would imply 'before' or 'after' specifically 'now' rather
than a qualified date.

> There are others, such as:
> It's three feet below.
> It is far below.
'after' and 'before' can replace 'thence' and 'hence' or 'ago', but
have a subtle differences in connotation, which may even be a figment
of my imagination.  Do not 'thence', 'hence', and 'ago' imply a vector
into the past and future?  Do they imply specifically 'before now',
and 'after now' or 'hereafter'?  How do 'I went long ago' and 'I went
long before' differ?

> Well, yes, one would expect the complement of 'ago' to be *acome (go ~
> come).
>  >Well, all right, you've got my vote; "athen" it is.  ---larry
> But surely the complement of *athen would be *now, not 'ago'?
>
> In any case, for those who want to use a single word in these time
> phrases referring to the future, English _already_ possesses the
> perfectly good word "hence". Why do we need to adopt a synonym? I don't
> get it.
Agreed.  If we're in the business of trying to make English more
orthogonal (I'm reminded of the 'somewhen' discussion; long live it in
Sussex), we should do it well.  It seems to me that 'hence' and
'thence' are just more orthogonal variants of 'before' and 'after'.
Both imply 'before now' and 'after now' if they're not specified.
They also have the benefit of fitting well with 'when'.  We have
orthogonal 'here', 'there', and 'where'.  What about 'hen' as opposed
to 'then'?  'therece' and 'herece'?  It seems that the language was
far more orthogonal before we meddled with it.  Perhaps the '-ce'
suffix was merely added to avoid collision, 'hen'.

So, by the process of simplifying and aligning, we theoretically get a
more orthogonal language... let's see...

when (deprecated.  use 'whence')
whence (a time)
hence (meaning 'before', implying 'before now')
thence (meaning 'after', implying 'after now')
somewhence (some time)
nen (the current time)
hen (a female chicken)

where (a place)
here (before, use 'nere' for current place)
there (after)
somewhere (some place)
nere (the current place.  hmm.  sounds like 'near'.
   maybe something made sense once upon a time)

who (a person)
tho (you, perhaps 'thou' would be easier to say ;-))
ho (me, possibly 'hou')
somewho (some person)
nho (the current person.  pronouned like 'new'?)

whow (a way.  possibly collides with 'hou', depending on pronunciation)
how (the traditional way)
thow (the destination way)
somewhow (a particular way)
now (the current way.  use 'nen' for current time)

what (a thing)
hat (original thing?  hmmm.  we'll have to use 'cap' more often.)
that (other thing?  at least somewhat makes sense)
somewhat (a particular thing)
nat (the current thing)

So, it's ridiculous.  At least we know.  :-)

Kris.

Reply