[YG Conlang Archives] > [saweli group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: [saweli] tense-aspect rule

Can't see any disatvantages.

Stefo

MorphemeAddict@hidden.email schrieb:
I'm considering a change of rule for verb tenses-aspects. I'd like to know what others think of this proposal. The intent of the change is to avoid repeating the tense in subsequent sentences. 

Here are the current rules (from Lexical Semantics):

"15.2 Default Tense and Aspect
In the interlingua, we will create a few simple rules that will make the intended tense and aspect obvious - even to a computer - when an explicit tense-aspect marking is missing. Here are the rules that I feel are both natural and efficient: 
   a. If a tense-aspect disjunct immediately precedes the verb, then it
   will set the tense and aspect accordingly.

   b. Otherwise, if the verb is derived from a temporal deictic root,
   then the tense will be the deictic tense, and the aspect will be
   perfective for past or future or imperfective for present.

   c. Otherwise, if a verb is modified by a tense-aspect adverb, then
   the adverb will provide the tense and/or aspect.  If the adverb
   indicates aspect but not tense, then the tense will be past.  If the
   adverb indicates tense but not aspect, then the aspect will be
   perfective.

   d. Otherwise, if the verb follows a conjunction then it will have
   the same tense and aspect as the preceding verb that it is linked
   to.

   e. Otherwise, if an embedded clause is introduced by a case tag
   derived from a root that specifies tense (i.e., 'before', 'after',
   'when', 'until', and 'since'), then the default tense of the
   embedded clause will be the same as the tense of the main clause,
   and the default aspect will be perfective.

   f. Otherwise, the tense and aspect will be past-perfective.
The above tests must be carried out in the order shown. "
I'm considering changing rule f to "Otherwise, the tense and aspect will be the same as the last main clause." (This is somewhat similar to the 'sticky' tenses of Lojban "ki".)
Thus the tense and/or aspect will be carried over from sentence to sentence unless explicitly altered by one of the other rules.
The tense may always be shown explicitly, even if it matches the default. This is already true and will not change. 

Are there any disadvantages, major or minor, to this rule change?

stevo