Re: Artyom Kouzminykh: Answes&proposal

Artem Kouzminykh wrote:

> ural_li-@hotmail.com wrote:
> >         The problem was not about necessity of tense or not, but
> about the
> > necessity of tense endings on verbs. If you want to have tense, why
> not
> > using auxiliaries, like spoken French that using "avoir+participe" for
> > the past tense.
>
> Using "have" for creating tenses is ridiculous even for Romance! What
> _logical_ connection is between having something and (past) tense!
If you did something in the past, the results of that action exist;
in a sense you "have" them.  If you are doing something now, or merely
plan to do it in the future, the results of that action do not yet
exist; you do not have them.

I have no idea whether this is the real reason that "have" is used in
English and French and German and other languages to form past tenses,
but you asked what connection there was, and this is a possible one.


> Sorry, saying that I didn't meant IAL, I meant just an artlang (of my
> own).
Ah, if you're interested in an artlang you can do whatevery you
please. :)  I think you will find people a bit less confrontational if
you make it clear you're talking about artlangs now.


Ed