Nillahimma: the Thread (NP: Noun Ablaut (Strong vs. Weak))

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
Prinsessa
runic
runic
Posts: 2647
Joined: 07 Nov 2011 14:42

Re: Nillahimma: the Thread (NP: Noun Ablaut (Strong vs. Weak

Post by Prinsessa »

thaen wrote:There are a lot of inconsistencies because I had it as /q/, with it being /q͡χ/ word-initially initially. Then I decided to drop /q/ and add the glottal stop, and I just kept <q> as the Romanization, just because <'> is used everywhere (I actually prefer <'>, though [:S] ). Then I had it as the glottal stop, but being realized as /q͡χ/ word-initially; partly because of laziness, and partly because I thought it'd be interesting.

Recently (since you brought it up), I have contemplated having it a glottal stop, but realized as /h/ word (syllable?) initially. But I haven't decided. So, as of when I wrote it, <qmpal> is [q͡χm̩.bɑl]. But it may very well become [hm̩.bɑl] or [ʔm̩.bɑl].
I actually think it could work, and be pretty cool, if you had an original alternation between word-initial [q͡χ] and [q] elsewhere, just like with the other plosives, but then had the plain [q] shift to a glottal stop just like in Egyptian Arabic, but have it remain as [q͡χ] initially, where the affrication stopped the shift to the glottal stop, which only acted on the plain [q].
thaen wrote:
Prinsessa wrote:Who are these "pupils" you keep referring to, anyhow? Fictional?
Quite fictional! They are just a way to spice up the grammar. Is my referencing them distracting? I'm genuinely curious; if they are, I won't include them in the Revamp.
Nah, it's not much different from me using "we" a lot in my own grammar. Creates some nice inclusivity!

As for the double marking, I actually can't find it myself again now either! Geez. :$
User avatar
thaen
roman
roman
Posts: 900
Joined: 04 Jun 2011 22:01
Location: Plano

Re: Nillahimma: the Thread (NP: Noun Ablaut (Strong vs. Weak

Post by thaen »

Prinsessa wrote:I actually think it could work, and be pretty cool, if you had an original alternation between word-initial [q͡χ] and [q] elsewhere, just like with the other plosives, but then had the plain [q] shift to a glottal stop just like in Egyptian Arabic, but have it remain as [q͡χ] initially, where the affrication stopped the shift to the glottal stop, which only acted on the plain [q].
I love it! [<3] I think that's what I'll do!
Prinsessa wrote:As for the double marking, I actually can't find it myself again now either! Geez. :$
Eh, oh well. But now that you mentioned it, I will add some :mrgreen:

____

On topic:

I decided to steal Arapaho's morphophonological process where /...h-/ + /h.../ > /hʔ/, and extend this to all other consonant doublings (since there are no geminates). That gives [nil.ʔɑ.him.ʔɑ], which I'm not too keen on. In light of that, I may not do it at all. [:S]
:con: Nillahimma
:con: Øð!
:con: Coneylang

I am the Great Rabbit. Fear me, O Crabs!
Spoiler:
ı θ ð ʃ ɲ ŋ ʔ ɛ ə ø ʑ ɕ ʷ ʲ ⁿ
Prinsessa
runic
runic
Posts: 2647
Joined: 07 Nov 2011 14:42

Re: Nillahimma: the Thread (NP: Noun Ablaut (Strong vs. Weak

Post by Prinsessa »

I think I'd prefer it the other way around, with glottal stops coming first.
User avatar
loglorn
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1728
Joined: 17 Mar 2014 03:22

Re: Nillahimma: the Thread (NP: Noun Ablaut (Strong vs. Weak

Post by loglorn »

Prinsessa wrote:I think I'd prefer it the other way around, with glottal stops coming first.
[+1]
Diachronic Conlanging is the path to happiness, given time. [;)]

Gigxkpoyan Languages: CHÍFJAEŚÍ RETLA TLAPTHUV DÄLDLEN CJUŚËKNJU ṢATT

Other langs: Søsøzatli Kamëzet
User avatar
thaen
roman
roman
Posts: 900
Joined: 04 Jun 2011 22:01
Location: Plano

Re: Nillahimma: the Thread (NP: Noun Ablaut (Strong vs. Weak

Post by thaen »

loglorn wrote:
Prinsessa wrote:I think I'd prefer it the other way around, with glottal stops coming first.
[+1]
[+1] Meeeeee too! :mrgreen: That's how I'll do it, I think.
Now, should I show this explicitly, or leave it as a rule? That is (albeit in reverse order of how I just said it):
Nillahimma vs. Niqlahiqma (Ni'lahi'ma looks gorgeous, to me, thought [:S] )

AHH! Sko, I found the double marking!! Both the possessed and the possessor are marked :mrgreen:
:con: Nillahimma
:con: Øð!
:con: Coneylang

I am the Great Rabbit. Fear me, O Crabs!
Spoiler:
ı θ ð ʃ ɲ ŋ ʔ ɛ ə ø ʑ ɕ ʷ ʲ ⁿ
Prinsessa
runic
runic
Posts: 2647
Joined: 07 Nov 2011 14:42

Re: Nillahimma: the Thread (NP: Noun Ablaut (Strong vs. Weak

Post by Prinsessa »

thaen wrote:Now, should I show this explicitly, or leave it as a rule? That is (albeit in reverse order of how I just said it):
Nillahimma vs. Niqlahiqma (Ni'lahi'ma looks gorgeous, to me, thought [:S] )
Not sure! But I don't think you should go against the apostrophes just because they're "a thing people dislike". I think it's more that they dislike sci-fi languages that are scattered with them without them actually changing the pronunciation. In your language they would have an actual meaning, and it would be shared with many natural languages. So use it if you want to. Just thinking you might get a lot of them if you have a lot of geminates, but I don't know, really.
thaen wrote:AHH! Sko, I found the double marking!! Both the possessed and the possessor are marked :mrgreen:
There you have it!
Last edited by Prinsessa on 03 Feb 2015 21:55, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
loglorn
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1728
Joined: 17 Mar 2014 03:22

Re: Nillahimma: the Thread (NP: Noun Ablaut (Strong vs. Weak

Post by loglorn »

thaen wrote:Now, should I show this explicitly, or leave it as a rule? That is (albeit in reverse order of how I just said it):
Nillahimma vs. Niqlahiqma (Ni'lahi'ma looks gorgeous, to me, thought [:S] )
That's just my opinion, but I'd rather not show it explicitly.
Diachronic Conlanging is the path to happiness, given time. [;)]

Gigxkpoyan Languages: CHÍFJAEŚÍ RETLA TLAPTHUV DÄLDLEN CJUŚËKNJU ṢATT

Other langs: Søsøzatli Kamëzet
User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 6352
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: Nillahimma: the Thread (NP: Noun Ablaut (Strong vs. Weak

Post by eldin raigmore »

thaen wrote:Aspects
There are three categories of aspects in Nillahimma: completion, non-completion, and telic. Completion aspects are the perfective and the imperfective. The non-completion aspects are gnomic, inceptive, cessative, habitual, iterative, pausative, resumptive, durative, and protractive. The telic aspects are telic, atelic, and quasi-atelic (Qatelic).
Telic Aspects
The telic aspects are a fun lot. There are three members of this group: telic, atelic, and quasi-atelic. I have not observed the Qatelic-Atelic distinction in any Natlang, so I coined the term Quasi-Atelic to represent what in most languages is simply Atelic, choosing to use Pure Atelic for the other half.
Telic indicates that the action has definite endpoints.
Qatelic indicates that the action has endpoints, but not definite. This is often used with verbs such as "to look (for)." One is searching for something, and once it is found (or not found), the search is over. It has a beginning and an end.
The Pure Atelic is used when an action has neither a beginning nor an end. This is often used for hyperbole, or for things that "always have been and always will be X." Example: "Winter is cold." PAtelic. "This/That winter in particular is cold" Qatelic.
Telic: (unmarked)
Qatelic: -t-
Pure Atelic: -m-
What do you do when something has an end (whether definite or not) but no beginning (neither a definite one nor the other kind)?
What do you do when something has a beginning (whether definite or not) but no end (neither a definite one nor the other kind)?

thaen wrote: Switch-Reference

I will only touch on this section, and bring it up in greater detail later.

Nillahimma's SR system is fairly simple and is canonical. All conjunctions and relative pronouns have two forms: one for same-subject (glossed CONJ.SS or REL.SS) and one for different subject (glossed CONJ.DS or REL.DS). The anchor clause is the first clause in the sentence, and all subsequent clauses refer back to it for determining whether to have a SS or DS marking.
The DS form of conjunctions and relative pronouns is formed by adding an /l/ to the word, or, in some cases, dropping the coda /r/ and lengthening the vowel.
Cool! This is one of my favorite features.
What are the rules for whether or not to combine clauses into a clause-chain?*
What circumstances require a clause-chain to be broken?**

*For instance, maybe consecutive clauses have to occur at overlapping or consecutive times and/or in overlapping or contiguous places; and/or every clause must share a participant with the anchor clause and/or with the previous clause. And/or, all the clauses must have the same aspect and/or polarity.

**I think I read that there is or was a Semitic language with clause-chaining in which all the clauses in a chain had to be affirmative and had to have the same aspect. As I understand it aspect-marking was reversed for clauses other than the anchor (initial) clause; that is, the "perfective" affix for stand-alone clauses and anchor clauses meant "imperfective" for consecutive or medial clauses, and the "imperfective" aspect for stand-alone and anchor clauses meant "perfective" for consecutive or medial clauses. Also, any negative clause had to be stand-alone. So if the speaker changed aspect, or had to speak a negative clause, s/he had to end the clause-chain; but might could start a new clause-chain at the next affirmative clause.
shimobaatar
korean
korean
Posts: 10373
Joined: 12 Jul 2013 23:09
Location: UTC-04:00

Re: Nillahimma: the Thread (NP: Noun Ablaut (Strong vs. Weak

Post by shimobaatar »

Regarding the name of the language, I like both ways: keeping it the way it's written, or using <q> (Nillahimma or Niqlahiqma). But I'd probably lean more towards not explicitly writing the glottal stops.
User avatar
thaen
roman
roman
Posts: 900
Joined: 04 Jun 2011 22:01
Location: Plano

Re: Nillahimma: the Thread (NP: Noun Ablaut (Strong vs. Weak

Post by thaen »

@Prinsessa: I didn't choose to not use apostrophes because people dislike them; I chose to because I didn't want to have them represented the same way in all of my languages with glottal stops. I think, for Nillahimma, I will use <q> word-initally, and <'> everywhere else, and not explicitly mark the occurrence of the glottal stop when a geminate consonant would otherwise appear, thus having CC where C is the same consonant, the surface form would be glottal stop+C.
Eldin wrote:What do you do when something has an end (whether definite or not) but no beginning (neither a definite one nor the other kind)?
What do you do when something has a beginning (whether definite or not) but no end (neither a definite one nor the other kind)?
Good question. I think that the Quasi-Atelic would be used, and I'll perhaps modify the meaning to "Indicates actions with either one beginning or ending point (definite or indefinite) or with both beginning and ending points, but they are both indefinite."
Eldin wrote:Cool! This is one of my favorite features.
What are the rules for whether or not to combine clauses into a clause-chain?*
What circumstances require a clause-chain to be broken?**
More good questions! [:D]

As far as I know, at the time, the only common factor is the sharing of at least one participant with the anchor clause. That may change as I more into the language.
I can't imagine how reversing the aspect would work. "I had went to the store, and I (had) met my friend there, who (had) cheated on the test when the teacher (had) left the room." All in the past perfective. I know I can't just whip English examples out of my butt, and that it doesn't have a switch-reference system, but isn't it still clause-chaining? In your example of the Semitic language, did they mark as the opposite, but still have the same meaning? If that makes sense...
Also, I noticed just now that from the point of "...who..." on, I have a subordinate clause that is describing "friend," so I'm not sure if that's clause-chaining.
:con: Nillahimma
:con: Øð!
:con: Coneylang

I am the Great Rabbit. Fear me, O Crabs!
Spoiler:
ı θ ð ʃ ɲ ŋ ʔ ɛ ə ø ʑ ɕ ʷ ʲ ⁿ
User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 6352
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: Nillahimma: the Thread (NP: Noun Ablaut (Strong vs. Weak

Post by eldin raigmore »

thaen wrote:As far as I know, at the time, the only common factor is the sharing of at least one participant with the anchor clause. That may change as I more into the language.
That's fine.
There's still some questions, though.
What if the marked clause's subject is a non-subject participant (maybe an object) of the anchor clause, and/or the anchor clause's subject is a non-subject participant (e.g. object) of the marked clause?
Especially when the marked clause is subordinately conjoined to the anchor clause; for instance, by a relative pronoun or other relativizer.
And what if the shared participant which the relative pronoun re-presents (that is, the one modified by the relative clause) is not the subject of the marked clause? Especially if it's also not the subject of the anchor clause? Is that even allowed, or do relative clauses have to have the noun-phrase they modify as their subject?

thaen wrote:I know I can't just whip English examples out of my butt, and that it doesn't have a switch-reference system, but isn't it still clause-chaining?
You know what? I don't know!

thaen wrote:In your example of the Semitic language, did they mark as the opposite, but still have the same meaning? If that makes sense…
Exactly. Such things happen frequently in languages; so frequently that the phenomenon has a name -- which I have forgotten [:x] [:$] .
Suppose there are two accidents, at least one of which is binary and the other is either binary or scalar.
It sometimes happens that the markings for the scalar accident are in one order when the binary accident has one value, but in the opposite order when the binary accident has the other value.
Like, suppose a language had just two genders -- say, Masculine and Feminine -- but four numbers; singular, dual, paucal, and plural.
It could be that masculine nouns were marked for number as follows:
suffix -s for singular
suffix -d for dual
suffix -a for paucal
suffix -l for plural
while feminine nouns were marked for number as follows:
suffix -l for singular
suffix -a for for dual
suffix -d for paucal
suffix -s for plural

thaen wrote:Also, I noticed just now that from the point of "...who..." on, I have a subordinate clause that is describing "friend," so I'm not sure if that's clause-chaining.
IMO it is if you say it is, and it isn't if you say it isn't. I'd be curious about the rules of switch-reference marking on the relative pronoun, though.

Edit:
thaen wrote:I think that the Quasi-Atelic would be used, and I'll perhaps modify the meaning to "Indicates actions with either one beginning or ending point (definite or indefinite) or with both beginning and ending points, but they are both indefinite."
Alright. That sounds good to me.

Edit:
Spoiler:
BTW:
To be subordinate to some other clause, a clause must be both dependent on and embedded in another clause (its matrix clause).
"Dependent on its matrix" means you can't know exactly what the dependent clause means unless you also know what the matrix clause means.
"Embedded in the matrix" means it performs some function in the matrix clause.
It can be a complement clause (used as if it were a noun; e.g. "said" complements, "want" complements);
or it can be a relative clause (used as if it were an adjective; e.g. your "who" clause before);
or it can be an adjunct clause (used as if it were an adverb; e.g. your "when" clause before).

Some languages make only a vague and fuzzy distinction -- or, no distinction at all -- between co-ordinate conjunction and sub-ordinate conjunction.
There's a large overlap between such languages and languages with what's explicitly called "clause-chaining".
In discussing languages with robust subordination grammarians tend to talk about "multiple embedding" or "deep embedding" or something, rather than about "clause-chains".
That's why your English example probably wouldn't be called a "clause-chain". It might nevertheless be a clause-chain FAIK.

In languages in which a subordinate clause and its matrix clause must occur one immediately next to the other in the same clause-chain, the subordinate clause can be embedded in its matrix clause only as its first element or as its last element. It seems that in most such languages it must either always be the last element, or else it must always be the first element.

Languages like English with a more robust subordination mechanism/strategy can also "center-embed" a subordinate clause in the interior of its matrix clause. Since a subordinate clause is allowed to have another, further subordinated, clause subordinate to it, this raises the possibility of "multiple center embedding", which some folks regard as a problem (but not an error).

Also English (and most other languages most CBBers are likely to be familiar with) allow a clause to be the matrix of three or more clauses directly subordinated to it.
And, one of its subordinate clauses can be the matrix of two or more further-subordinated clauses.
That can't happen in the languages discussed two paragraphs ago; the main clause can have at most two other clauses subordinate to it, and any subordinate clause can have at most one other clause further subordinated to it.

Japanese has both clause-chaining and subordination, as I understand it (I could be wrong).
It supports subordination without clause-chaining (doesn't it?); and it supports clause-chaining without subordination (I probably got this right); and it supports subordination within a clause-chain (if I'm not mistaken).
And if a subordinate clause and its matrix are part of the same clause-chain, the subordinate clause could come either just before or just after its matrix clause in the clause-chain.

One thing I found when trying to create a conlang with both subordination and switch-reference-system clause-chaining, is that an entire clause-chain should never be subordinated to any clause not in the chain.
If you can do that, and make it work smoothly, then I will be impressed and will congratulate you. However, if you want to finish your conlang quickly, I advise you to give up trying to subordinate clause-chains if it starts looking difficult.
My conlang doesn't allow subordination and clause-chaining to mix. It's simpler.

It looks like all your subordinating will be done by having the subordinate clause conjoined as the last element of its matrix clause.
How will you handle complement clauses? And how will you handle adjunct clauses? And how will speakers and addressees tell the difference?
Will subordinate conjunction of a complement clause or an adjunct clause look just like co-ordinate conjunction?
How will speakers and addressees tell the difference between subordinate conjunction and co-ordinate conjunction if the subordinate clause isn't a relative clause? Or, will they tell the difference?
Will you ever allow a subordinate clause to precede its matrix, or be embedded as the first element in its matrix clause?

If you allow both "right-embedding" (embedding as the last element) and "left-embedding" (embedding as the first element), it's possible to generate the same problems as "multiple central embedding" by, say, having an SC4 left-embedded in an SC3 which is right-embedded in an SC2 which is left-embedded in an SC1 which is right-embedded in a main clause.

But that can't happen if the SC and its matrix must come together in a clause-chain; not even if the main clause can have both a left-embedded SC and a right-embedded SC.
If an SC2 is subordinate to an SC1 which is left-embedded in its matrix, then the SC2 must be also left-embedded in its matrix the SC1:
similarly if an SC2 is subordinate to an SC1 which is right-embedded in its matrix, then the SC2 must be also right-embedded in its matrix the SC1.
In other words you can't left-embed something in something which is itself right-embedded in something; nor right-embed something in something which is itself left-embedded in something.
So not only is center-embedding impossible, but you can't recreate the difficulties multiple center-embedding causes by multiple alternating left- and right- -embedding.

BTW do you know what "the principle of disjoint reference" is?
It means that in any clause any noun or pronoun or noun-phrase cannot refer to a group which has any member(s) in common with any group referred to by any other noun/pronoun/NP in that same clause.
Or, at least, the participants in the clause cannot refer to any of the same individuals.
For instance, maybe:
the Agent can't be the Patient, AND
if the Agent is a group, the Patient can't be a member of that group, AND
if the Patient is a group, the Agent can't be a member of that group, AND
if the Agent and the Patient are both groups, they can't have any members in common.

I found it necessary, for the switch-reference system of my conlang, to require that each clause in any clause-chain satisfy the disjoint-reference principle.
(Stand-alone clauses don't have to have disjoint reference, though.)
But my conlang's switch-reference system tries to say a lot more than your conlang's.
So maybe you won't need the "PDR".
But, if you do, I thought I should mention that there are natlangs that have that principle.

Obviously any language with "the principle of disjoint reference" is going to need a nimble and robust system of reflexivization and reciprocalization.
As I understand it (I could be wrong -- Micamo, among others, will know), most (all? probably not) Algonquian languages have hierarchical morphosyntactic alignment, direct/inverse voice, obviation, and the principle of disjoint reference.
Last edited by eldin raigmore on 11 Feb 2015 12:14, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
thaen
roman
roman
Posts: 900
Joined: 04 Jun 2011 22:01
Location: Plano

Re: Nillahimma: the Thread (NP: Noun Ablaut (Strong vs. Weak

Post by thaen »

I'm not sure how Nillahimma will handle most of what you talked about, nor whether it will be right- or left-embedding, yet. I've heard of the Principle before, and I'll probably make chaining agree with it. I'm taking a brief break from Nillahimma to work on Øð, my first speedlang. I hate to post such a short and insufficient reply to what you've written, but until I study SR and clause-chaining more, I don't know that there is much I can say :/ But I do thank you for the questions, because they will give me some things to answer when I get to it!
:con: Nillahimma
:con: Øð!
:con: Coneylang

I am the Great Rabbit. Fear me, O Crabs!
Spoiler:
ı θ ð ʃ ɲ ŋ ʔ ɛ ə ø ʑ ɕ ʷ ʲ ⁿ
User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 6352
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: Nillahimma: the Thread (NP: Noun Ablaut (Strong vs. Weak

Post by eldin raigmore »

thaen wrote:I'm not sure how Nillahimma will handle most of what you talked about, nor whether it will be right- or left-embedding, yet. I've heard of the Principle before, and I'll probably make chaining agree with it. I'm taking a brief break from Nillahimma to work on Øð, my first speedlang. I hate to post such a short and insufficient reply to what you've written, but until I study SR and clause-chaining more, I don't know that there is much I can say :/ But I do thank you for the questions, because they will give me some things to answer when I get to it!
That's perfectly cool.

Meantime I've thought of a couple more things to ask about; you need be in no rush to answer them.

First:
(Some? most?) clause-chaining languages with switch-reference marking seem to have a "conjunctive" mood rather than a "subjunctive" mood.
Here I'm talking about those languages that don't sharply distinguish between co-ordinating conjunction of clauses and sub-ordinating conjunction of clauses.
And, by "subjunctive mood", I mean a mood (or mode or modality) whose chief use, or one of whose chief uses, is to mark the verbs of (many or most or all) subordinate clauses to distinguish them from finite verbs and main clauses.*
The verbs of the non-anchor clauses in a clause-chain are put into the "conjunctive" mood; the verb of the clause-chain is a finite verb and is in some other mood.

*If the main, or one of the main, uses of a mood is to mark doubtful clauses, a good name for the mood would be "dubitative". For historical reasons in many European natlangs there's a mood called "subjunctive" that, were we to rename the moods today, would be better named "dubitative". If your conlang isn't intended to be descended from one of them, or from one of their ancestors by diachronic changes similar to what happened to them in real life, then you probably don't want to say "subjunctive" when you mean "dubitative" or "irrealis" or "conditional" or something. That is, if your conlang has a mood for which marking clauses as subordinate is not one of the main uses, you won't want to call it "subjunctive" IMO.

Second:
I'm confused about whether or not you're confused about the difference between "perfect" and "perfective".
From your discussion of telicity I would gather you're very well-informed about aspects.
But in your "English-language example of a clause-chain" you said "past perfective" but every one of the verbs was "past perfect".

To be clear let me go ahead and talk about perfective aka aoristic aspects vs imperfective aspects, and also versus "perfect" and versus "aorist".
I'll put it in spoilers so anyone who doesn't want to read it again can skip it.
Spoiler:
Aspect is about the temporal shape of the event or situation spoken of by the verb.
The main distinction among aspects is that between perfective or aoristic aspects and imperfective aspects.
Imperfective aspects are used to say that the speaker intends to communicate something about the internal temporal structure of the event or situation; for instance, that it has phases; for instance, that it has a beginning and/or a middle and/or an end. Inchoative aspects (about something beginning), terminative or cessative aspects (about something ending), durative aspects (about something lasting for a while), and iterative aspects (about something being repeated), are probably usually imperfective aspects.
Perfective (aka aoristic) aspects are used to say that the speaker doesn't intend to communicate anything about the internal temporal structure of the event or situation; not even whether or not it has such a structure. If the speaker uses a perfective (aoristic) aspect, s/he is presenting the situation as "an undifferentiated blob of time", or perhaps a single point in time.
There may be more, or even many more, imperfective aspects in a language than perfective aspects. There rarely are more perfective aspects than imperfective aspects; because there are more ways to talk about something than there are to say you're not going to talk about it.

"Perfect" aka "retrospective", OTOH, is used to say that an anterior (relative past) event has simultaneous (relative present) relevance. Or if the language is mood-prominent instead of tense-prominent, maybe that a realis event has irrealis relevance. Or if the language is aspect-prominent instead of tense-prominent, maybe that a perfective event has imperfective relevance.
So, "perfect" and "perfective" have nothing to do with each other.

"Aorist", OTOH, is used to simply indicate that something did in fact happen (or is in fact happening), without reference to when it happened/happens or how long it took/takes. In effect it's a pure realis mood totally stripped/purged of any tense or aspect.
So, "aorist" and "aoristic" also have nothing to do with each other.
Probably you already knew all that; if so, I apologize for writing it again.

Anyway I wanted to post those thoughts now while I'm thinking them. When you feel like reading them they'll be here.
I look forward to more;
and I'm going to read about your other conlang too.
Post Reply