[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Oct 1, 2012 4:15 AM, "Mike S." <maikxlx@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 9:50 AM, selpa'i <seladwa@hidden.email> wrote:
>>
>> The following may sound harsh, but it's not meant to be.
>>
>> I'm not sure it's a good idea to have tense markers at all in Xorban.
>
> I am not sure why the tense markers seem so widely disliked, but whatever the reason, the blame for their existence is solely mine. The reason I introduced them was to allow experimentation with the tense-logic operators found in mathematics and philosophy; see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-temporal/
>
> I gave them a subgroup under the experimental "h-", which I am relatively sure isn't going to be a consonant in CX. I am not demanding anyone use them nor do I think it's supercritical they have short forms in the final language. If I was going to push for short forms in the TAM arena, then I would push for perfective, imperfective, and possibly perfect and prospective aspect markers, probably in that order. Short tense markers are less important IMHO.Your proposed tense markers aren't widely disliked. Their proposal has simply caused me to come to the view that the inventory of unary operators should be kept to a bare minimum until the time comes to optimize for brevity. But as predicates, they're fine, and I hope you add them to the list you're working on.
--And.