Tense and Aspect in Miwonša

[Plusquamperfekt]

Dear fellow conlangers,

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]

(2) All imperfective verbs end in <-an>. All perfective verbs end in an agreement marker or <-at>: The past tense is indicated by infixing <ya> or <wa> into the stem. The person markers are <im> (1SG), <iš> (2SG), <iw/it> (3SG), <am> (1PL), <aš> (2PL), <aw/at> (3PL).

• 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)
  

(3) The recent changes do not affect the morphology. Instead I tried to establish more precise rules about when to use which tense/aspect combination and how aspects interact with the lexical aspects (aktionsart) of the verbs. For this reason, the tense/aspect system in Miwonša is not just a replication of the corresponding system in Slavic languages, as there are significant differences concerning the general notion of what is considered to be an imperfective and a perfective situation.

____________________________________________________________________

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.
  

(2) Some states and activities become inchoactive when they are used with the perfective aspect:

• 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)
  

As you can see in the second example above, the imperfectives ending <-an> covers not only the progressive interpretation of "raining", but also the perfective one. So if we compare Miwonša to Spanish, for example, we can conclude that "playašisjan" corresponds to "llovía", "llovió" and "ha llovido", while the best translations for "playašisjat" would be "empezaba/empezó/ha empezado a llover".

(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)
  

Since the imperfective forms are only used for emphasis, there are big differences compared to the use of aspects in European natlangs:

• 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.
  

(4) Another subgroup of verbs contains activities which become semelfactives when they are petfective:

• Code: Select all

  Khayahiman. = I was coughing. / I coughed. (several times or constantly)
  Khayahim. = I coughed. (one time)
  

(5) The last group of verbs contains activities which become telic when they are perfective. However, unlike type 3 verbs, the imperfective forms are unmarked, while this time the perfective forms are the marked ones. They are not only used to express that an action has been completed, but instead it is used that there is some kind of result.

• 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")

[Plaas]

Thanks Plusquamperfekt, this is interesting.
Now I am curious, how would future tenses be expressed in this language? Are both aspects used for the future tense, or only one?

[gestaltist]

I can’t wrap my head around „present tense perfective“. It sounds like a contradiction to me, unless it is used to describe the future. Care to elaborate?