Vreleksá

eldin raigmore · Joined: 03 May 2007 Posts: 522 Location: SouthEast Michigan

Our collaborative conlang uses "relative tense"; that is, whether the action, event, process, situation, or state being spoken of (the "marked" event or process) occurs before ("anterior" or "relative past"), after ("posterior" or "relative future"), or at the same or overlapping time ("simultaneous" or "relative present"), as some other action, event, process, situation, or state (the "reference event" or "reference process") known to the addressee (because it is the speech-act, or because it has been spoken of earlier, or because it is just about to be spoken of).

Degrees Of Remoteness

I think it might be a good idea to introduce a rudimentary system that we can, with partial justification, misname "degrees of remoteness". Here's the explanation:

When one process ends before another begins, it may be that there is a notable interval between the ending of the earlier and the beginning of the later. Or, instead, it may be that there is no gap, or that the gap is imperceptible, or that it simply isn't worth mentioning.

If the marked process ends notably before the reference process begins, we could call this "remote anterior"; but I'd prefer to call it "discrete anterior", because "remote" makes it sound more like "long, long before" rather than just "long enough before to be worth mentioning". Similarly, if the marked process begins notably after the reference process ends, we could call this "discrete posterior".

OTOH if the marked process ends just as the reference process begins, this could be called "consecutive anterior"; but since "consecutive" is also used as a term describing clause-chaining languages, and we aren't doing that in this conlang, I'd rather call it "immediate anterior". Similarly if the marked process begins exactly as the reference process begins, I'd like to call this the "immediate posterior".

So we have, so far,

Discrete Anterior; the marked clause's process ends notably before the reference clause's process begins.
Immediate Anterior; the marked clause's process ends exactly when the reference clause's process begins.
Discrete Posterior; the marked clause's process begins notably after the reference clause's process ends.
Immediate Posterior; the marked clause's process begins exactly when the reference clause's process ends.

Note that "exactly when" doesn't refer to timing differences only scientific instruments can detect; nor, even, to timing differences the speaker and/or addressee can detect; rather, "exactly when" applies whenever the speaker, and in the speaker's opinion also the addressee, doesn't/don't care to mention or discuss the difference.

Inherent Aspect and Aspectual Class

The degrees-of-remoteness introduced above do not apply when either the marked clause's event or the reference clause's event is a point-event having no duration, no beginning discrete from its ending, no ending discrete from its beginning.

Whether the situation a verb speaks of is a point-event, or rather is a process taking time and having a beginning and an ending (and a middle?), or a state that lasts for a while, is part of that verb's inherent aspect or "aspectual class" (aka aktionsart).

If both the marked and the reference situations are processes, or states that obtained for some appreciable amount of time, then the distinctions of "immediate vs discrete" make sense to apply to "anterior" or "posterior".

But if the marked or the reference situation is a point-event, the "immediate" relative times should actually be spoken of with the simultaneous tense.

Degrees Of Remoteness(?) for Simultaneous Tense

I propose we distinguish the following kinds of simultaneous:

Simultaneous Type 1: The marked and reference situations begin together and end together. This can apply whether they are point-events or processes; it's just that they either both have to be point-events or both have to be processes.
Simultaneous Type 2: The marked and reference situations begin together but do not end together. This can't apply when both are point-events. But if the marked situation is a point-event it's a lot like "immediate anterior", and if the reference situatation is a point-event it's a lot like "immediate posterior". If both are processes rather than point events, then one of them ends during the other, while the other is still ongoing. I don't propose to mark whether the marked situation ends during the reference situation, or vice-versa.
Simultaneous Type 3: The marked and reference situations end together but do not begin together. This can't apply when both are point-events. But if the marked situation is a point-event it's a lot like "immediate posterior", and if the reference situatation is a point-event it's a lot like "immediate anterior". If both are processes rather than point events, then one of them begins during the other, while the other is already ongoing. I don't propose to mark whether the marked situation begins during the reference situation, or vice-versa.
Simultaneous Type 4: The marked situation begins and ends during the reference situation, while the reference situation is ongoing.This can't happen unless the reference situation is a process rather than a point event. If the marked situation is a point event, it occurs during the reference situation, after it begins but before it ends. If the marked situation is a process, the entire marked process takes place while the reference situation is ongoing.
Simultaneous Type 5: The reference situation begins and ends during the marked situation, while the marked situation is ongoing.This can't happen unless the marked situation is a process rather than a point event. If the reference situation is a point event, it occurs during the marked situation, after it begins but before it ends. If the reference situation is a process, the entire reference process takes place while the marked situation is ongoing.
Simultaneous Type 6: Any other way they can overlap in time.This can't happen unless both the marked situation and the reference situation are processes rather than a point events. They don't begin together, and they don't end togother, but each begins before the other ends and ends after the other begins. Either the marked process begins before the reference process begins and ends during the reference process, after it begins but before it ends; or the marked process endsd after the reference process ends but begins during the reference process, before it ends but after it begins. I don't propose to mark which of those is the case.

_________________
Therefore love the child who holds your hand; and let your wife delight in your embrace; for this is the lot of mankind to enjoy:
But immortal life is not for men.

Tolkien_Freak · Joined: 26 Jul 2007 Posts: 314 Location: Eiëra

...We do have absolute tenses too, don't we?
_________________
'We are the knights who say, "に!"'

今に遊べているゼルダー黄昏の姫君を。凄い!!

eldin raigmore · Joined: 03 May 2007 Posts: 522 Location: SouthEast Michigan

Tolkien_Freak · Joined: 26 Jul 2007 Posts: 314 Location: Eiëra

That sounds really confusing. I would be more for having both relative tenses and absolute tenses.
_________________
'We are the knights who say, "に!"'

今に遊べているゼルダー黄昏の姫君を。凄い!!

eldin raigmore · Joined: 03 May 2007 Posts: 522 Location: SouthEast Michigan

Tolkien_Freak · Joined: 26 Jul 2007 Posts: 314 Location: Eiëra

Mkay. It just sounds like it will take some getting used to.
_________________
'We are the knights who say, "に!"'

今に遊べているゼルダー黄昏の姫君を。凄い!!

eldin raigmore · Joined: 03 May 2007 Posts: 522 Location: SouthEast Michigan

yssida · Joined: 16 Sep 2007 Posts: 245 Location: sa jaan lang

Hemicomputer · Joined: 04 Feb 2008 Posts: 182 Location: Calgary, Alberta

StrangeMagic · Admin Joined: 18 Apr 2007 Posts: 493

Woah >_< o_O I have no idea what it is.

eldin raigmore · Joined: 03 May 2007 Posts: 522 Location: SouthEast Michigan

So it should be

eldin raigmore · Joined: 03 May 2007 Posts: 522 Location: SouthEast Michigan

Anyway, I'm thinking there should be two main "degree of remoteness" slots at the end of the temporal-modal Auxiliary. They should be optional.

Do or don't the marked and referred events share a boundary?
Is or is not one of them totally contained inside the other?

If we know the aspects of the two events, and we know whether the marked event is Anterior to or Posterior to or Simultaneous with the referred event, this will disambiguate the above for the most part.

If the marked situation is simultaneous with the referred situation, and is a point event, one of them is "inside" the other, so this slot needn't be filled (can be filled with 0 (zero)).

If the referred situation is also a point event, they must share a boundary; so that needn't be marked.

If the referred situation is a process, they might or might not share a boundary. The possibilities are;

RB = MB = ME < RE (marked event occurs just as referred process begins)
RB < MB = ME = RE (marked event occurs just as referred process ends)
RB < MB = ME < RE (marked event occurs in the middle of referred event).

The first two situations listed above aren't disambiguated from each other. We should mark them, and leave the last situation listed above unmarked (marked with zero).

If the marked situation is simultaneous with the referred situation, and is a process rather than a point event, there is more variety.

If the referred situation is a point event rather than a process, then it must occur "inside" the marked process. It may share a boundary or may not. The possibilities are:

MB = RB = RE < ME (marked process begins just when referred event occurs)
MB < RB = RE = ME (marked process ends just when referred event occurs)
MB < RB = RE < MB (marked process is ongoing when referred event occurs)

We should mark the first two of the three situations just listed and zero-mark the last of them. That will leave a possible ambiguity between the first two situations just listed.

If the marked situation is simultaneous with the referred situation, and is a process rather than a point event, and if the referred situation is also a process rather than a point event, then there is more variety yet.

If they share a boundary, then one of them must have occurred "inside" the other (for them to be simultaneous). The possibilities are;

MB=RB<RE=ME (co-extensive in time)
RB=MB<ME<RE (shared beginning)
MB=RB<RE<ME (shared beginning)
RB<MB<ME=RE (shared ending)
MB<RB<RE=ME (shared ending)

.There's no need to mark the "insideness", since that's a consequence of simultaneity of they share a boundary; but maybe we could now use a third slot, with one value for shared beginnings, one value for shared endings, and one value for co-beginning co-ending situations.

If simultaneous processes do not share a boundary, then either one of them occurs inside the other

RB<MB<ME<RE
MB<RB<RE<ME

or not

MB<RB<ME<RE
RB<MB<RE<ME

. I propose we mark the first two as "inside" and leave the latter two unmarked or zero-marked.

That takes care of the simultaneous ones.

Obviously if the marked situation is either Anterior to or Posterior to the referred situation, neither one can occur "inside" the other.

If both the marked situation and the referred situation are processes rather than point events, they may share a boundary or they may not. If the marked process is Anterior to the referred process, the possibilities are

MB<ME=RB<RE (shared boundary)
MB<ME<RB<RE (discrete)

. If the marked process is Posterior to the referred process, the possibilities are

RB<RE=MB<ME (shared boundary)
RB<RE<MB<ME (discrete)

. It may be we don't want to zero-mark any of those; maybe we want a "discrete" value to fill in this slot, if the tense is not simultaneous, as well as the "immediate" value (called "shared boundary" if they were simultaneous.)

If either the marked or the referred situation is a point-event, then in order for the marked situation to be either Anterior or Posterior to the referred situation, they must be discrete.

------

I'll come up with some actual phonology for this morphology, and post it; it'll be easier to understand then, I'm sure.
_________________
Therefore love the child who holds your hand; and let your wife delight in your embrace; for this is the lot of mankind to enjoy:
But immortal life is not for men.

yssida · Joined: 16 Sep 2007 Posts: 245 Location: sa jaan lang

I'll have to re-read it. Man, my linguistic hat isn't working as it used to. Sad

_________________
kasabot ka ani? aw di tingali ka bisaya mao na

my freewebs site