Re: Locating a Sentence's Action in Time Rob Zook Mon, 05 Oct 1998 10:18:28 -0500 Sorik of Vulcan wrote: > > >> > >> 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 ?[-----]? > > > > I like Rob's illustration better. The whole aspect of "inclusive" > meaning including the tense-moment, and "exclusinve" not including the > tense-moment is appealing to me. That's interesting, 'cause I actually prefered Saul's once I saw it :) In either case, "inclusive progressive" (where does that come from Saul? The progressive part I mean), and the continuous refer to exactly the same thing, were the duration of the action begins before the tense moment, thru the tense moment and after the tense moment. For my part, use which ever label or picture illustrates that concept for you the best. > >> 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). > > I'm confused as to what vdi- means, and when it should be used. I have to admit I'm still a little confused about those too. Perhapse some more examples of how to use it would help, Saul. > And is k'wawje suposed to be "invitation"? If so, then shouldn't k'wawja be > singular "one invitation" and k'wawje be "more than five invitations"? Possibly. The word my not even be really usable in our dialect, since I think it's one of the words "borrowed" from one of the trek novels. > I also don't understand why we use <-hi> at the end of k'wawje. > Wouldn't that mean "to the invitation? Or with the above, are you > really litterally saying, "I wrote to the invited one"? The -hi is a gramatical marker that does not have a distinct equivalent in English. It simply marks a word as the direct object of an action, or in otherwords what the action, acts upon. So in this case, I'm writing, the -hi marks what it is that I'm writing. > >> lihe th'prashila Spokhi th'kahscuwanhe > >> "I began my speech to Spock during my kahswan" > > Shouldn't we have an <'at> in there somewhere? Because th'at'prala > would mean "my speech" and th'prala means "I speak". No. Because the English is not a direct word by word translation. I'm sorry if that confused people. I was doing these 4-5 line morphical transitions from vulcan to english gloss I'll have to return to doing that. lihe th'prashila Spokhi th'kahscuwanhe li -he th'-pra -shi -la Spok -hi [far past]-[locative] I -[speak1]-[initiation]-[speak1] Spock-[direct object] th'-kahs -cu -wan -he I -[passage rite1]-[duration]-[passage rite2]-[locative] "in past I begin speech to spock during the time of my rite of passage to adult" "I began my speech to Spock during my kahswan" One thing we haven't got in vulcan yet, and I think it needs it is a couple of more possessiveness syntact markers to distinguish "ownership" from simple association. > Finally, Am I the only one who has a REALLY hard time saying "ticuxoy"? > I find it rather anoying personally. I'm afraid that's something we'll all just have to live with :P Many non-English languages cause the same frustration to the English speaker (and personally I have real sympathy for a non-English speaker trying to learn English :). Besides according to Amanda vulcan is not easy to speak. In that spirit I think in places in the ZC (and in our newer efforts here), Vulcan was intentionally made hard to speak in some places. Certainly for English speakers, maybe some non-native English speakers can comment on how hard it seems to pronounce from their language's perspective. Rob Z.