Re: Locating a Sentence's Action in Time Rob Zook Sun, 04 Oct 1998 13:53:14 -0500 At 11:06 AM 10/4/98 -0500, Saul Epstein wrote: >Quotes from: Rob Zook >Date: Sunday, October 4, 1998 3:27 AM >> 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. Well, yes, since I thought you wanted to keep things as close to the original ZC as possible. >> 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. I thing both you and I look at my first catagory then, albeit from opposite ends. In which case, I don't think the meaning of -zo- needs to change at all, since it seems to correspond to what you mean by incomplete initial and what I called (from things you previously wrote about aspects) imperfect initial. >> 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? I don't suppose it really matters what we call them as long as the word points to the underlying concepts adequately. >> 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). OK, I wasn't sure about that. So would mean "I wrote the invitation" or "in past I write the invitation". >> 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. Why truncate the original meaning of -zo-? I think we can expand these concurrence aspects even further and still retain the original meaning of -zo-: -1-----[-----]------1 indeterminate ?[-----]? initial indeterminate(-zo-) <---[-----]? final indeterminate ?[-----]---> >> 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." Hmmm but without something indicating the tense of 'ankh it could just as easily mean "Surak was living inside the War", or "in the midsts of the War". The -he partical by itself seems really, really indefinite. >> 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. Well, it probably would not make any sense using the new meaning you assigned to -cu-. I probably should have come up with a new partical which mean "some point inbetween the begining an the end of the event", i,e. "during". >> 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..." But that's not quite what I meant, as the beginning refers to a point in time within the action, not to the interval of the action. Those Phases, or what I called event aspects, refer to specific point instances (with one exception) inside the action or the temporal lifetime of an entity: 2___3_____ 7_____________8_____10 _ _ _ _12 1___| |_6_| |_ _ _9 |_____11 |__ ?5? ?------4--------? 0----------------------------------1 (The entire duration of an action) 1. A point just before the start of an action (pre-initiation) 2. A point at the start of an action (initiation) 3. A point just after the start of an action (post-initiation) 4. An interval during the action (duration) 5. A point within an action of some indeterminate position. (continuous) 6. A point were an action temporarily halts (suspension) 7. A point where an action resumes (resumption) 8. A point just before an end of the action (pre-completion) 9. A point where the action ends before expected (premature completion) 10. A point at the end of an action (completion)' 11. A point just beyond the end of an action (post-completion) 12. A point where the action ends after expected (postmature completion) >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 Make -zo- an initial indeterminate, a new partical for final, and perhaps a final indeterminate partical and then it sounds grand. Rob Z.