Stacking moods or aspects etc.

[eldin raigmore]

I’m sure many CBBeans are familiar with relative tense; e.g. past-within-past, future-within-past, past-within-future, future-within-future, etc. (Those who aren’t yet familiar can search for anterior vs posterior and familiarise themselves easily and quickly, for the most part.)

Also, Micamo brought up the fact(?) that Tlingit, among other natlangs, has clauses with an “inner aspect” and an “outer aspect”. I think (I could be wrong) they can be perfective-within-imperfective or imperfective-within-perfective, perhaps in addition to one or both of perfective-within-perfective and/or imperfective-within-imperfective.

Earlier in this subforum I brought up a question about mood-within-mood.
It seemed likely to me that some natlangs might have an irrealis-within-irrealis mood; especially in conditional sentences wherein the protasis can be realis or irrealis, and, (possibly independently), the apodosis can be realis or irrealis.

For the past few days I’ve been wondering about the possibility of a conlang or natlang that could have realis-within-realis, realis-within-irrealis, irrealis-within-realis, and irrealis-within-irrealis moods.
Especially about the semantics of such a thing.
Is it likely that realis-within-irrealis and irrealis-within-realis mean the same thing?
(My guess is that in at least some instances they would have different meanings.)
If they have different meanings, is it likely they nevertheless take the same morphological* marking?

Edit: *Or other (maybe lexical?) ways to show it, such as auxiliaries, or (possibly) suppletion.

….
Some natlangs can stack relative tenses up to four deep; eg past-within-future-within-past-within-future, and future-within-past-within-future-within-past.
Could a language express {realis vs irrealis}
as well as {realis vs irrealis} within {realis vs irrealis}
and also {realis vs irrealis} within {realis vs irrealis} within {realis vs irrealis} ?
If so what could they all mean ?

[Creyeditor]

I really want to answer this question in a more detailed fashion but I don't have enough time. So here's a snippet of my thoughts on this.

Colloquial German can stack it's Perfekt (which is semantically a past tense for most people) to derive a form sometimes called Hyperperfekt (which semantically is a past-in-the past tense) even though we have a perfectly fine Plusquamperfekt (which is semantically also a past-in-the-past tense). You can also combine the two without a change in meaning, IINM. These are all tense forms though.

Perfekt.
Ich habe es gesehen.
I have it seen
'I saw it.'

Hyperperfekt
Ich habe es gesehen gehabt.
I have it seen had
'I had seen it.'

Plusquamperfekt
Ich hatte es gesehen.
I had it seen
'I had seen it.'

Hyperplusquamperfekt
Ich hatte es gesehen gehabt
I had it seen had
'I had seen it.'

My general feeling is that it's probably easier to stack periphrastic mood/aspect constructions than morphological ones. Modal verbs for example can be combined in several languages. Some examples from German.

Ich muss es wollen dürfen.
I must it want be.allowed
'I must be allowed to want it.'

Ich darf es können wollen.
I be.allowed it can want
'I am allowed to want to be able to do it.'

The general-purpose periphrastic conjunctive can also be combined with modal verbs. Again some examples.

Ich würde essen müssen.
I would eat must
'I would need to eat.'

Ich würde essen dürfen.
I would eat be.allowed
'I would be allowed to eat.

But surprisingly, the periphrastic conjunctive cannot be stacked with itself, i.e. there is no Hyperkonjunktiv, IINM. The following sentences are ungrammatical.

*Ich würde essen würden.
I would eat would

*Ich würde es würden.
I would it would

I could imagine the following meaning. If the conjunctive means 'I can think of a situation/world where X holds' then the Hyperkonjunktiv could mean 'I can think of a situation/world, where I can think of a situation/world, where X holds'. Of course, these are very hypothetical

[eldin raigmore]

Thanks, @creyeditor!

My general feeling is that it's probably easier to stack periphrastic mood/aspect constructions than morphological ones. Modal verbs for example can be combined in several languages.

I didn’t intend to exclude lexical methods such as auxiliaries nor even suppletion. I would like to hear about them, too!
(I also didn’t want to exclude derivation, nor inflection. But I doubted anyone would be troubled by that!)

The general-purpose periphrastic conjunctive can also be combined with modal verbs.

These are all interesting and relevant, I think!

[Imralu]

But surprisingly, the periphrastic conjunctive cannot be stacked with itself, i.e. there is no Hyperkonjunktiv, IINM. The following sentences are ungrammatical.

*Ich würde essen würden.
I would eat would

*Ich würde es würden.
I would it would

I don't find that surprising at all. These are just ruled out because after würde you need an infinitive and würden is not one. The infinitive is werden, which just indicates change of state ("become") or futurity (although generally not in the infinitive). The irrealis meaning of würde comes from the fact that it's in the Konjunktiv II (past subjunctive) form, and there is no such thing as a subjunctive infinitive in German (in spite of all the stupid textbooks that give möchten as a verb alongside other infinitives). The other modal verbs you listed above have their meaning of being able to, being allowed to etc. as their lexical meaning, and so they have this meaning in their infinitive as well. They also have Konjunktiv II forms that indicate irrealis (könnte, müsste, dürfte etc.) and, again, this irrealis meaning is unavailable in an infinitive.

It's the same in English. Would is not an infinitive, so you can't say "I would would" because you need an infinitive after "would". (And English goes further by having all the modal verbs be defective and require paraphrasing for an infinitive, e.g. be going to, be able to, be allowed to, have to, but there is no paraphrased infinitive phrase that indicates the irrealis meaning of "would".

[Creyeditor]

That's great If this is just an arbitrary morphological gap (there is no form that expresses both the features Konjunktiv and Infinitiv), then we could expect to find other languages where such a form exists. Also, maybe I should avoid using surprisingly and instead state that I am surprised. Mainly because the third person plural Konjunktiv looks like it could be an infinitive but it's not, e.g. Sie würden essen.

[Salmoneus]

It's the same in English. Would is not an infinitive, so you can't say "I would would" because you need an infinitive after "would". (And English goes further by having all the modal verbs be defective and require paraphrasing for an infinitive, e.g. be going to, be able to, be allowed to, have to, but there is no paraphrased infinitive phrase that indicates the irrealis meaning of "would".

FWIW, while this is of course true of standard English (and is very annoying at times!), the so-called "double modal" construction is actually a common feature of english dialects (or was, at least).

My father, for instance (from the North) will regularly use constructions like "won't can" and "might can". It's not just with 'can', either. although I can't remember him personally using them, expressions like "might would", "must would", "might should", etc, do or at least did occur for some people.

[And then there's "ought to". "Ought" isn't really an infinitive, but it's not uncommon to hear things like "might ought to" even from people who don't otherwise use double modals, I think]

[Imralu]

That's great If this is just an arbitrary morphological gap (there is no form that expresses both the features Konjunktiv and Infinitiv), then we could expect to find other languages where such a form exists. Also, maybe I should avoid using surprisingly and instead state that I am surprised. Mainly because the third person plural Konjunktiv looks like it could be an infinitive but it's not, e.g. Sie würden essen.

Yeah, in most of my conlangs, markers of grammatical information can just be chained however you like with no restriction, so it's possible to say "would would" if there is a context that calls for it. I can't claim that any of my languages is terribly naturalistic though, but it's at least conceivable for a grammar to work that way ... if the situation it describes can be conceived.

I'm really struggling to think of a situation where it makes sense though. Every example I think of, thinking of a different hypothetical within a hypothetical, I want to add something like "I would say ..." in it, that then puts the markers of hypotheticality in different clauses, or it's simply two different conditions applied at the same time, in which case it's more like "If it were A AND if it were B ...". Can you come up with an example where double hypotheticality marking would appear in one clause? The only kind of thing I can think of is where hypotheticality has essentially been lexicalised, like "would like" as a more polite phrase than "want" ... so "would want" could be made more polite by saying "would would want" ... ? But I don't really have "would like" meaning "want" in my conlangs and I can't think of any case where hypotheticality has been lexicalised in my conlangs. (I suppose I could add "would like" for "want".)

My languages also tend to drop any grammatical markings that can be understood from context. E.g. in this sentence, the hypotheticality is marked in the protasis (introduced by ha, so it doesn't need to be marked again in the apodosis (marked by do), so that also makes double marking a bit less likely I think.

Ha nai gwo nyahwi, do ha wai mbo le nga?
Q 1S=PRED HYPOTHETICAL worm | then Q 2S=PRED continueA loveA GEN.1S
—or—
Hagwo nai nyahwi, do ha wai mbo le nga?
Q-HYPOTHETICAL 1S=PRED worm | then Q 2S=PRED continueA loveA GEN.1S
If I were a worm, would you still love me?

And yeah, re. German, one of my biggest pet peeves in learning materials is when möchten "would like" is presented as though it's verb of its own. The infinitive is mögen. The non-composed third person singular forms are:

• mag (Präsens) = likes / has liked
  möge (Konjunktiv I) = (allegedly) likes / may
  mochte (Präteritum) = liked
  möchte (Konjunktiv II) = would like

The Konjunktiv II, where it is available (mainly only used on modal verbs and a few other very common verbs and replaced by würde = INFINITIVE elsewhere) gives the meaning "would" (but also equivalent to the use of the past tense or past subjunctive were in subordinate clauses in English), so möchte is essentially identical to "would like" in English, coming from the verb "like".

I even remember one text book giving möchten in a list of verbs and translating it into English as "to would like".

Another way you can say "would like" is hätte gern, literally "would gladly have". Möchte can be used with a verbal compliment or an object, but hätte gern only with an object (or, with a past participle, where it then means "would have liked to have done ...") and that's also a past subjunctive (Konjunktiv II) of the verb haben.

• hat (Präsens) = has
  habe (Konjunktiv I) = (allegedly) has
  hatte (Präteritum) = had
  hätte (Konjunktiv II) = would have

FWIW, while this is of course true of standard English (and is very annoying at times!), the so-called "double modal" construction is actually a common feature of english dialects (or was, at least).

My father, for instance (from the North) will regularly use constructions like "won't can" and "might can". It's not just with 'can', either. although I can't remember him personally using them, expressions like "might would", "must would", "might should", etc, do or at least did occur for some people.

[And then there's "ought to". "Ought" isn't really an infinitive, but it's not uncommon to hear things like "might ought to" even from people who don't otherwise use double modals, I think]

Yeah, I meant standard English. I was aware of double modals, using modal verbs where the syntax demands an infinitive or a past participle. I think the first time I ever heard it, it was a satellite interview between an Australian commedian and Anna Nicole Smith, who did not seem to be in the best shape at the time of the interview (it was not that long before she passed away, I think) and she finished a sentence with "... than I used to could", and the interviewer looked at her with confusion and then she seemed to doubt what she had said as well. I just thought that might have been a slip of the tongue because of her mental state, but yeah, I found out it's a dialect thing. It seems to be totally absent in Australia.

Do you know if modals are ever used after "to" in these dialects?

[Khemehekis]

I even remember one text book giving möchten in a list of verbs and translating it into English as "to would like".

I've seen some conlangers define the modal for "can" in their dictionaries as "to can" -- something like "to be able to, to can". Although I always define it as "to be able to, can".

[Imralu]

I've seen some conlangers define the modal for "can" in their dictionaries as "to can" -- something like "to be able to, to can". Although I always define it as "to be able to, can".

Maybe their verb indicating ability also means to put something into cans.