zompist bboard

I am currently creating a conlang which inflects based on Aspect instead of Tense. It's something I'm not used to, so I'm having trouble figuring out how to express certain things. On "A quick update" in Ephemera, I had asked about expressing age in such a language and got a solution I believe works quite well. There are still a few things I'm having trouble with however.

Right now, the only thing that's troubling me is how to express things that would involve a copula. Phrases like "I am a very tall midget" (a cookie if you get the reference) or "You are a very odd person". I may add onto this OP if anything else pops up.

Thanks for reading this, have a good 2017!

I would just use an imperfective (or progressive or whatever your language uses).

smii wrote:I would just use an imperfective (or progressive or whatever your language uses).

Imperfective it is then.

Just be careful what the actual distinction is. "Perfective" and "imperfective" are wildly imprecise.

The present tense in "I am a very tall midget" is quite unambiguous, but there are languages that have aspectual distinctions in the copula in the past tense (Romance). "I was a very tall midget" is a little bit more complicated; e.g., in Portuguese, you could translate was as either fui or era (the former is perfective, the latter imperfective). Slavic languages however, where aspect features prominently, don't make this distinction in their copulae, to the best of my knowledge (this may be related to the fact their perfective/imperfective distinction hinges more on telicity*, whereas in Romance languages boundedness seems to be the key).

*Auto-correct suggests 'felicity' for 'telicity', and now I want to create a language that explicitly marks how felicitous speakers expect their utterances to be.

David Rabinowitz wrote:Just be careful what the actual distinction is. "Perfective" and "imperfective" are wildly imprecise.

The present tense in "I am a very tall midget" is quite unambiguous, but there are languages that have aspectual distinctions in the copula in the past tense (Romance). "I was a very tall midget" is a little bit more complicated; e.g., in Portuguese, you could translate was as either fui or era (the former is perfective, the latter imperfective). Slavic languages however, where aspect features prominently, don't make this distinction in their copulae, to the best of my knowledge (this may be related to the fact their perfective/imperfective distinction hinges more on telicity*, whereas in Romance languages boundedness seems to be the key).

*Auto-correct suggests 'felicity' for 'telicity', and now I want to create a language that explicitly marks how felicitous speakers expect their utterances to be.

Telicity makes more sense, so I'll go with that. Thanks for the input.

You could also simply not have aspect distinctions in the copula. Both Mandarin and Cantonese have verbal aspect markers in general, but don't have any for the copula.

Just some things to add:
As David Rabinowitz already alluded to, the range of function of aspect is going to be language dependent. Copulae seem especially versatile in languages that mark aspect.
Usually it's best to deal with these matters by looking at TMA systems as a whole. In your particular system, you may be dealing with unchartered territory. When I was studying aspect for some research I was doing, the only languages I could find that were marked solely for aspect that research had been done on were Semitic languages. Even in these cases, it's clear that tense and modality are caught up in 'aspect.' The perfective verb in Arabic, for example, also seems to have a default past tense. Some argue that this affects the imperfective verb such that, in at least part of the history of Arabic, it is actually semi-imperfective, bounded at the beginning of the action and unbounded at the end of the action. At the same time, it takes some acrobatics to use the perfective to refer to the non-past.
The Semitic languages all also have a perfect aspect, which is a retrospectively bound aspect. (That is, it refers to an event in the past with current relevance). With phrases like "I am a very tall midget" or "You are a very odd person," the choice between expressing them with perfect aspect ("I am become a very tall midget" and "You are become a very odd person") or imperfective aspect ("I am being a very tall midget" and "You are being a very odd person") can be either ambiguous and arbitrary.

So! On the bright side, you have a lot of leeway. But the down side is that you have to figure out what exactly you mean by perfective/imperfective, and define their functions. I recommend Comrie's book on Aspect, if you're interested in a survey of aspect. It's both a seminal work and short. I read half the book in one sitting.

David Rabinowitz wrote:*Auto-correct suggests 'felicity' for 'telicity', and now I want to create a language that explicitly marks how felicitous speakers expect their utterances to be.

One of my earlier languages was marked for the present emotional state of the speaker. (It was spoken by non-humans, and these markers were internalized by the speakers in such a way that misusing them would come across rather like a human faking a yawn--possible but frequently unconvincing. I should reboot that language some time...)

Gúmmíkjúklingurinn wrote:When I was studying aspect for some research I was doing, the only languages I could find that were marked solely for aspect that research had been done on were Semitic languages.

Surprising, considering Chinese.

If we're doing book recommendations, I'd recommend Xiao and McEnery's Aspect in Mandarin Chinese, which goes into detail on all the aspect markers ("actual" -le, durative -zhe, progressive zai-, continuative -xiaqu...), and even on the usage of no aspect marker at all.

Gúmmíkjúklingurinn wrote:Just some things to add:
As David Rabinowitz already alluded to, the range of function of aspect is going to be language dependent. Copulae seem especially versatile in languages that mark aspect.
Usually it's best to deal with these matters by looking at TMA systems as a whole. In your particular system, you may be dealing with unchartered territory. When I was studying aspect for some research I was doing, the only languages I could find that were marked solely for aspect that research had been done on were Semitic languages. Even in these cases, it's clear that tense and modality are caught up in 'aspect.' The perfective verb in Arabic, for example, also seems to have a default past tense. Some argue that this affects the imperfective verb such that, in at least part of the history of Arabic, it is actually semi-imperfective, bounded at the beginning of the action and unbounded at the end of the action. At the same time, it takes some acrobatics to use the perfective to refer to the non-past.
The Semitic languages all also have a perfect aspect, which is a retrospectively bound aspect. (That is, it refers to an event in the past with current relevance). With phrases like "I am a very tall midget" or "You are a very odd person," the choice between expressing them with perfect aspect ("I am become a very tall midget" and "You are become a very odd person") or imperfective aspect ("I am being a very tall midget" and "You are being a very odd person") can be either ambiguous and arbitrary.

So! On the bright side, you have a lot of leeway. But the down side is that you have to figure out what exactly you mean by perfective/imperfective, and define their functions. I recommend Comrie's book on Aspect, if you're interested in a survey of aspect. It's both a seminal work and short. I read half the book in one sitting.

Well I've already started digging this hole so might as well go deeper. Who knows, I might dig all the way to linguistic China. I'm going to go the way the Slavic languages define their aspects (telicity, see above posts) but besides that I'm unsure. *grabs shovel* Time to dig for information I guess.

Alternatively you could make your copulas just inflect for tense alone, or perhaps the normal aspectual distinction could be converted into a pure tense distinction. You could use similar tricks with other stative verbs as well if that's what you use for adjective-like functions.

Frislander wrote:Alternatively you could make your copulas just inflect for tense alone, or perhaps the normal aspectual distinction could be converted into a pure tense distinction. You could use similar tricks with other stative verbs as well if that's what you use for adjective-like functions.

I'll keep this in mind as an option *continues digging*

What I have done in a number of my languages is to have a contrast between a perfect, i.e. a past perfective, and an imperfect, i.e. a non-past imperfective - but at the same time had the use of auxiliary verbs to form other combinations of aspect and tense, e.g. the use of a perfect "do" auxiliary with an imperfect main verb to form a past imperfective and the use of a perfect "do" auxiliary with a perfect main verb to form a pluperfect perfective. (Note that in this language all verbs are always marked for perfect versus imperfect, even when non-finite, except for stative verbs that are always imperfect - except they too can be made past imperfective with an auxiliary verbs.)

Travis B. wrote:What I have done in a number of my languages is to have a contrast between a perfect, i.e. a past perfective, and an imperfect, i.e. a non-past imperfective - but at the same time had the use of auxiliary verbs to form other combinations of aspect and tense, e.g. the use of a perfect "do" auxiliary with an imperfect main verb to form a past imperfective and the use of a perfect "do" auxiliary with a perfect main verb to form a pluperfect perfective. (Note that in this language all verbs are always marked for perfect versus imperfect, even when non-finite, except for stative verbs that are always imperfect - except they too can be made past imperfective with an auxiliary verbs.)

Does that language have non-past perfectives?

Pole, the wrote:

Travis B. wrote:What I have done in a number of my languages is to have a contrast between a perfect, i.e. a past perfective, and an imperfect, i.e. a non-past imperfective - but at the same time had the use of auxiliary verbs to form other combinations of aspect and tense, e.g. the use of a perfect "do" auxiliary with an imperfect main verb to form a past imperfective and the use of a perfect "do" auxiliary with a perfect main verb to form a pluperfect perfective. (Note that in this language all verbs are always marked for perfect versus imperfect, even when non-finite, except for stative verbs that are always imperfect - except they too can be made past imperfective with an auxiliary verbs.)

Does that language have non-past perfectives?

Perfectives are, by implication, past because they describe a completed action; that's why in some languages perfectives have been known to become a past tense.

Zaarin wrote:Perfectives are, by implication, past because they describe a completed action; that's why in some languages perfectives have been known to become a past tense.

I think you're confusing “perfect” with “perfective”. Perfective can be used in non-past context — the closest equivalent in English would be the “simple” tenses of non-stative verbs (‘I jumped off…’, ‘Now, I jump off…’, ‘I will jump off…’).

Pole, the wrote:

Zaarin wrote:Perfectives are, by implication, past because they describe a completed action; that's why in some languages perfectives have been known to become a past tense.

I think you're confusing “perfect” with “perfective”. Perfective can be used in non-past context — the closest equivalent in English would be the “simple” tenses of non-stative verbs (‘I jumped off…’, ‘Now, I jump off…’, ‘I will jump off…’).

Ah, quite right. I always get (im)perfect/(im)perfective mixed up.

Zaarin wrote:

Pole, the wrote:

Zaarin wrote:Perfectives are, by implication, past because they describe a completed action; that's why in some languages perfectives have been known to become a past tense.

I think you're confusing “perfect” with “perfective”. Perfective can be used in non-past context — the closest equivalent in English would be the “simple” tenses of non-stative verbs (‘I jumped off…’, ‘Now, I jump off…’, ‘I will jump off…’).

Ah, quite right. I always get (im)perfect/(im)perfective mixed up.

Except it's not true of perfects either. For one thing, perfects don't have to describe a completed action: "I've been working on this for six days now!" does not entail that you've necessarily finished working. And for another, you certainly can have non-past perfects. "By the time you read this, I will have completed my mission".

Salmoneus wrote:

Zaarin wrote:

Pole, the wrote:

Zaarin wrote:Perfectives are, by implication, past because they describe a completed action; that's why in some languages perfectives have been known to become a past tense.

I think you're confusing “perfect” with “perfective”. Perfective can be used in non-past context — the closest equivalent in English would be the “simple” tenses of non-stative verbs (‘I jumped off…’, ‘Now, I jump off…’, ‘I will jump off…’).

Ah, quite right. I always get (im)perfect/(im)perfective mixed up.

Except it's not true of perfects either. For one thing, perfects don't have to describe a completed action: "I've been working on this for six days now!" does not entail that you've necessarily finished working. And for another, you certainly can have non-past perfects. "By the time you read this, I will have completed my mission".

I believe in the LCK it said that perfect aspect is used to refer to past or future events with present relevance or consequence. So it can refer to an action that hasn't even happened yet.

The salmon eus right.

Zaarin wrote:

Pole, the wrote:

Travis B. wrote:What I have done in a number of my languages is to have a contrast between a perfect, i.e. a past perfective, and an imperfect, i.e. a non-past imperfective - but at the same time had the use of auxiliary verbs to form other combinations of aspect and tense, e.g. the use of a perfect "do" auxiliary with an imperfect main verb to form a past imperfective and the use of a perfect "do" auxiliary with a perfect main verb to form a pluperfect perfective. (Note that in this language all verbs are always marked for perfect versus imperfect, even when non-finite, except for stative verbs that are always imperfect - except they too can be made past imperfective with an auxiliary verbs.)

Does that language have non-past perfectives?

Perfectives are, by implication, past because they describe a completed action; that's why in some languages perfectives have been known to become a past tense.

Actually, where I said non-past I mean present above; but yes, there is no present perfective. Things such as performatives that are semantically present perfective are still morphologically imperfect. However, an auxiliary "go" can be used to form a periphrasic future, and it can be used with a perfect verb to form a future perfective and an imperfect verb to form a future imperfective.

mèþru wrote:viewtopic.php?f=4&t=43982&p=1108951

Thank you.