Re: Locating a Sentence's Action in Time Saul Epstein Sun, 4 Oct 1998 11:06:43 -0500 Quotes from: Rob Zook Date: Sunday, October 4, 1998 3:27 AM > At 10:26 PM 10/1/98 -0500, Saul Epstein wrote: > > >The second part is a set of infixes that locate the action > >more precisely with relation to the moment indicated by the > >tense. These are inserted directly into the word naming the > >action itself, after > >the first vowel. > > I find my self a little confused about the choices. I suppose > since all of these appear in the ZC. I also wonder if that > means you don't want to adopt any of the remaining additions > I proposed or if you just got tired of waiting for me to bring > it up again? :) Neither. This is just to lay a foundation so that everyone interested in translating or creating sentences has something to work from. Hence my characterization of it as a "simple core...,because there's a lot more to be said on the subject," and my choice of title "Locating a _Sentence's_Action_ in Time." > Some of these descriptions do not seem to match up to the ZC > descriptions. Actually, none of them match up. This system represents a fairly radical departure from the original. The only commonality is that the ZC describes these infixes as "aspectral," and I'm using them to express some relative parts of what grammarians call aspect. And I adapted the original infixes for the purpose just to have this revised system better anchored in the original. I tried to match them as well as I could, given the fact that I'm trying to describe different things. I can see where that would be confusing. > > -xe- incomplete (final) > > action begins late during tense-moment, just as > > tense-moment ends, or just after tense-moment, > > and ends after tense-moment This should have been --, by the way. My mistake. > I still think we can best organize these in two parts, -zo- > belonging to a class of particals which refer to the position > of the tense moment in relation to the period of time, or > interval during which the action takes place. > > The rest belong together and seem to describe the position of > the tense moment in relation to the interval during which the > action takes place, when considered as a process or event with > general stages. > > All of these I think refer to the "aspect" of the sentance? > How about we call the two sets of particals Interval Aspects > and the Event Aspects? I have no objections to such a division. The aspect I want to express here is the relation of the action's interval (or event?) to the tense-moment, and not the other way around. That is, with the tense-moment considered the larger, less precisely-defined period, and the aspect considered a more precisely-defined period relative thereto. I don't know which, if either, of your categories that corresponds to. Perhaps the first, which you describe containing only -zo-. If that's the case, we need only find new infixes for the other 4. > Although an action obviously seems like a process, I see no > reason why we cannot look at entities as processes as well, > so while interval aspects, so I think event aspects could > apply to both. I have come around to the same position. > So we can have Interval Aspects like these: [...] > Each of which we can view on a time line like so (where -1 > means the infinite/indefinite past, 0 the Tense Moment and 1 > the infinite/indefinite future): > > TM > -1--------0--------1 > imperfect - initial ?<----0>? > inclusive progressive ?<----0---->? > imperfect - final ?<0---->? > perfect <0> > exclusive progressive ?<--->0<--->? Maybe this will help... , [tense-moment] -1-----[-----]------1 incomplete - initial { <----->[-----] { <---[->---] continuous <-[-----]-> incomplete - final { [---<-]---> { [-----]<-----> complete [<--->] indeterminate ?[-----]? with the question marks indicating uncertainty. Incomplete in this context is not meant to describe an action unfinished in a sequential, temporal sense, but rather one that is not whole within the tense-moment. > So each of these interval aspects refer to the duration, > beginning middle and end of an action, in relation to the > tense moment. > > Sometimes we need to look at a little finer resolution on our > action or entities interval of time. We may need to point out > relative positions within this interval of time as if it were > a process with definite stages from start to end. I do think these are two different things. Perhaps we can call the one Concurrence and the other Phase? > Let's look at the situation were I write an invitation to some > one, I could just say: > > lihe th'k'tvehi vdik'wawjehi > "I wrote the invitation" I think with vdi-, as I intended it, would mean "invited one." would still be "the/an invitation" or "to invite" or "inviting" (as an adjective). > Now lets allow that act of writing some duration. What if I > say that sentance after I begin writing the invitation but > before the process of writing has ended: > > lihe th'k'tvezohi vdik'wawjehi > "I wrote the invitation (and am still writing it)" As I meant it to operate, this sentence would mean, roughly "I have written the invitation," possibly implying "I am even now signing my name at the bottom," or some such. In other words, the action does not continue significantly beyond the moment of speech. > Surak lihe owkja 'Ankh'khehe > "Surak in past he exist before, during and after the time of > the past WAR" > (gloss) "Surak existed around the time of the past WAR" > > The temporal aspect changes the object from a plain old entity > to a temporal location. This could just as easily be lihe ow'ticuxoi 'ankh'he surak past he-living war-in Surak "Surak was living during the War." > lihe th'prala Spokhi th'kahscuwanhe > "I spoke to Spock during my kahswan" > > more literally: > "in past I speak to Spock located during my kahs'wan" This may just be an unfortunate example, but I think the "during" is implied. > lihe th'prashila Spokhi th'kahscuwanhe > "I began my speech to Spock during my kahswan" > > or more literally: > "in past my begin speak to Spock located during my kahs'wan" That actually works as I meant, if -shi- is incomplete (final) concurrence. "I began (or was about) to speak..." I don't think these are incompatible, I'd just like to distinguish them better. We could assign all but -zo- to the Phase category, including -cu-, and use others for Concurrence: -zo- final (was "incomplete (initial)") -fu- complete -dhe- continuous -go- initial (was "incomplete (final)") -n~a- indeterminate -- from Saul Epstein locus*planetkc,com - www,planetkc,com/locus "lihe ow'phahfur the's'hi the's'cha' surakri'; the's'phahrka the's'hi surakecha'." -- K'dvarin Urswhl'at