recently I reworked my tense and aspect system and I would like to know your opinions about whether the system which I am going to present in this thread would be plausible with regard to the tense and aspect systems in languages. Furthermore I would like to ask you to check if I use the correct terminology to describe my tense and aspect system.
____________________________________________________________________
First of all, some facts:
(1) Even though Miwonša is an a priori conlang, the tense and aspect system was inspired by the verbal morphology which is present in West and East Slavic languages: There is a distinction between past tense and present tense and another distinction between perfective and imperfective verbs. However, unlike in Slavic languages, perfective verbs do not have future time reference when they are combined with perfectivity markers. Instead, there is an imperfective and a perfective present tense:
Code: Select all
(1a) Šwožiman žankai. - I am writing a letter[size=85] (Ipfv.; => This form is used to point out that the process of writing is still ongoing and not finished yet)[/size] (1b) Šwožim žankai. - I write a letter. [size=85](Pfv.; => This form implies that the writing has already started or that it will begin immediately after the sentence is finished. The perfective form also implies that the subject will not stop writing until the letter is finished.)[/size]
Code: Select all
Example conjugation (1SG only): šwož-iwa - to write (infinitive) šwož-im-an - I am writing (present tense imperfective) šwož-im - I write (present tense perfective) šwo<ya>ž-im-an - I was writing (past tense imperfective) šwo<ya>ž-im - I wrote/I have written (past tense perfective) (Miwonša uses periphrastic structures to indicate future time reference)
____________________________________________________________________
In Miwonša, there are five different types of verbs. The classification is based on Vendler's (1967) and Comrie's (1976) works. A short summary of the verb types can be found here.
(1) Some verbs do only have imperfective forms. They describe states. In Miwonša, states are defined as verbs which are durative and atelic. Unlike activities, they can neither be progressive nor habitual, but only continuous.
Code: Select all
kjan-im-iš-an - (love-1SG-2SG-IPFV) - I love you (present tense imperfective) kja<ya>n-im-iš-an - (love<PAST>-1SG-2SG-IPFV) - I loved you (past tense imperfective) There perfective equivalents "kjanimiš" and "kjayanimiš" would be incorrect.
Code: Select all
State: zuž-im-an - (know-1SG-IPFV) - I know (present tense imperfective) zu<ya>ž-im-an - (know<PAST>-1SG-IPFV) - I knew (past tense imperfective) zuž-im (know-1SG) - I get to know/learn (present tense perfective) zu<ya>ž-im (know<PAST>-1SG) - I got to know/learnt (past tense perfective) Activity: plaš-isj-an - (rain-IMPERS-IPFV) - it is raining (present tense imperfective) plaš-isj-at - (rain-IMPERS-IPFV) - it begins to rain (present tense imperfective) pla<ya>š-isj-an - (rain<PAST>-IMPERS-IPFV) - it was raining/it rained (past tense imperfective) pla<ya>š-isj-at - (rain<PAST>IMPERS-PFV) - it began/it has begun to rain (past tense perfective)
(3) Some activities become telic if you use them with perfective forms. However, while the perfective achievements and accomplishments are unmarked, the imperfective activities are usually only used to emphasize that an action is still ongoing and thus highly marked.
Code: Select all
Šwožiman žankai. - I am writing a letter (imperfective present tense) Šwoyažiman žankai. - I was writing a letter (imperfective present tense) Šwožim žankai. - I write a letter. (perfective present tense) Šwoyažim žankai. - I wrote/have written a letter. (perfective past tense)
Code: Select all
Miwonša: Šwoyažim žankai, nak anžiwmo pruyašifimat. (Perfective <=> Perfective) English: I was writing a letter when my father called me. (Progressive <=> Simple Past) Spanish: Estaba escribiendo una carta cuando mi padre me llamó. (Imperfecto <=> Indefinido) Polish: Pisałem list, kiedy zadzwonił do mnie ojciec. (Imperfective <=> Perfective) This example shows that English, Spanish and Polish use different tenses (imperfective main clause, perfective subordinate clause), while Miwonša uses perfective forms in both sentences. Miwonša: Šwoyažiman žankai, nak anžiwmo pruyašifimat. (Imperfective <=> Perfective) English: I was (still) writing the letter when my father called me. (as above) Spanish: Todavía estabia escribiendo la carta cuando mi padre me llamó (as above). Polish: Nadal pisałem list, kiedy zadzwonił do mnie ojciec. (as above). The second example shows that the imperfective forms of type 3 verbs do not necessarily correspond to imperfective forms in European languages. In order to express the meaning, you usually need to add additional adverbials to indicated that an action has not ended yet.
Code: Select all
Khayahiman. = I was coughing. / I coughed. (several times or constantly) Khayahim. = I coughed. (one time)
Code: Select all
Žwenjaman pra sjašai. = We are talking about that. (unmarked) Žwenjam pra sjašai. = We are discussing that. (= We will talk about that until we reach a consensus.)
OK, those were the five verb classes. As you have seen, Miwonša has a distinction between perfective and imperfective verbs, but both categories are associated with specific aktionsarten for each verb type. There are only very few verbs which cannot be assigned to either of the mentioned categories.
Let me finish with a short summary:
Type 1: States (Ipfv.) (e.g. "kjaniwa" = "to love")
Type 2: States/Activites (Ipfv.) <=> Inchoactives (Pfv.) (e.g. "zužiwa" = "know" vs. "get to know")
Type 3: Activities (Ipfv.) <=> Achievements/Accomplishments (Pfv.) (e.g. "šwožiwa" = "to write")
Type 4: Activities (ipfv.) <=> Semelfactives (Pfv.) (e.g. "khahiwa" = "to cough")
Type 5: Activities (ipfv.) <=> Achievements/Accomplishments (e.g. "žweniwa" - "to talk")