[YG Conlang Archives] > [ceqli group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Rex May - Baloo wrote:
>
> on 4/2/02 9:59 PM, Mike Wright at darwin@hidden.email wrote:
>
> > Rex May - Baloo wrote:
> >>
> >> Aspect. So far, Ceqli has the progressive aspect with particle 'gi'
> >>
> >> Go soma. I read. Go gi soma. I am reading.
> >>
> >> And it sort of has aspect with the composite tenses:
> >>
> >> Go pa ja. I went.
> >> Go pa pa ja. I had gone.
> >> Go fu pa ja. I will have gone.
> >
> > I don't think the same particle should be used both for past tense and
> > for perfect aspect. What if I want to express the perfect and ignore
> > the tense? (Which Mandarin speakers do quite frequently.) Don't be
> > thrown off by the fact that tense and aspect are so strongly
> > intertwined in English.
>
> Good point. The only thing that corresponds in English that I know of is
> the dialectal 'done', which seems to be tense-free at least in some
> instances. Anyhow, it can be present or past. I think Esperanto uses 'jam'
> (already) the same way, sometimes. So if Ceqli has a word meaning 'already'
> it can serve as the 'completion' aspect marker?
I really like "done" in this meaning, as opposed to "already".
Existing Ceqli "fin" might also be usable, but I can see it having a
slightly different shade of meaning.
(BTW, Mandarin <le> is derived from <liao3>, meaning "to complete".)
Let's say we used "don" (from English "done"):
Go fu komdon fuco dorm. I'll eat (all done), then sleep.
Go pa komdon fuco dorm. I ate (all done), then slept.
"Komdon" could be considered a kind of resultative verb, which is a
very typical Mandarin structure. A resultative verb is basically a
splittable verb-verb compound, where the second verb (which may also
be a stative verb) indicates the result of the first verb. I mentioned
this in the discussion of 'look' vs. 'see'.
However, this approach doesn't jibe with the "gi soma" approach. To do
the progressive as a resultative verb ending, I might pick "dawr" ("to continue"):
Go soma. I read.
Go somadon. I read (all done).
Go somadawr. I am reading.
(Isn't the English progressive funny? "Reading" is a kind of verbal
noun, but used like an adjective, so that "I am reading" has the same
pattern as "I am tall.")
If you want to use a prefixed particle to express the perfect, will
you just make one up?
> >> Go pa fu ja. I was going to go.
> >> Go fu fu ja. I will be going to go.
> >
> > "Going to" shows intention. It can just as well be replaced by
> > "planning to". I don't think it's a kind of aspect. (To tell the
> > truth, although "I will be going to go." feels correct, I can't really
> > tell you how it differs from "I am going to go." And I have no idea
> > how to say it in any other language.)
>
> I used 'going to' because it's the only way to say it in English that I know
> of. You can't say "I will will go." or "I was will go."
>
> The difference is: When the sun rises I will be going to get up. That is,
> I won't get up when it rises, but at that point my getting up will be in the
> future. You're right that 'going to' implies intention in English, but the
> 'Go fu fu ja' is not meant to in Ceqli.
>
> So what do we need to show what I'm trying to show with 'fu fu'? Esperanto
> has this system:
>
> Mo estos ironta. I will be going to go.
I still can't distinguish between "I am going to go." and "I will be
going to go." in terms of two different situations, unless "I will be
going to go." means, "I will be on the verge of going." If this is
what it means, then we may not need a complex tense construct, but can
express it using vocab.
I think that using vocab in place of complex structures is especially
beneficial in cases that won't occur very frequently. Vocab can be
very obvious and transparent, while complex, seldom-used patterns will
be easily forgotten.
Of course, "going to", "about to", and "on the verge of" all use vocab
to express this idea, but "on the verge of" is the only one that seems
at all transparent to me.
> Can Loglan do this too? I've forgotten.
>
> So, do we need a word for 'already' to be used for the completion aspect?
> If so, what form?
While I like "don" for completion, we do also need a word for
"already" for emphasis.
> And do we need a corresponding 'future-ish' aspect particle?
"Future-ish" looks like tense to me. What aspect are you thinking of here?
> >> What other aspect is desirable?
> >
> > Mandarin has markers for progressive (duration) and perfect
> > (completion). There is also repetition, but I have no experience with
> > such a thing. I would guess that repetition can be handled well enough
> > using appropriate adverbial phrases.
I just checked Li and Thompson, and see that they include
"experiential" under aspect. Different languages use different
existing lexical items to express this idea:
English
I have seen that movie.
I *possess* see-PAST-PARTICIPLE that movie.
Japanese
Watashi wa sono eiga o mita koto ga aru.
I TOPIC that movie OBJECT saw *affair SUBJECT exists*.
Hokkien
Goa2 bat4 khoa~3 hit1-teng1 tian7-ia~2.
I *know/recognize* see that movie.
Mandarin
Wo3 kan4guo na4pian dian4ying3.
I see-*pass/cross over* that movie.
So, we need to come up with a reasonable approach. I don't see
anything even remotely universal. You'll have to decide whether we're
going to use resultatives or prefixed particles to express aspect.
Since I'm Mandarin-oriented, I naturally prefer resultatives.
> Yes. Important to remember that a lot of aspect is, as you say, intertwined
> with tense in English, and is expressed not grammatically, but semantically.
> Russian, for example, has aspect all over the place, usually with prefixes
> on verbs.
--
Mike Wright
http://www.CoastalFog.net
____________________________________________________________
"The difference between theory and practice is that, in
theory, there is no difference between theory and practice;
in practice, however, there is." -- Anonymous