<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-CA link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72" style='word-wrap:break-word'><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>Menya is a member of the Angan family of Trans-New Guinea (TNG) languages which, like many TNG languages, uses distinct medial verb forms in clauses that are neither sentence final nor embedded (such as relative clauses are). Both final and medial verb forms can be distinguished as realis or irrealis on the basis of the actor suffix set that is used. Many TNG languages require concord on the realis/irrealis parameter between the final and dependent medial verbs, such that realis medial forms can not co-occur with irrealis final forms at the end of the clause chain, and visa versa. Menya, however, allows either realis or irrealis medials in a clause chain that ends with an irrealis final which sets the chain of events in the future. The default forms for translating both <span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>‘</span>when<span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>’</span> and <span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>‘</span>if<span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>’</span> clauses in the future from English or Tok Pisin are the realis medials. The DR (=different referent) realis medials, which indicate a switch in the topical entity such as change of subject, end with the temporal clitic =<i><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>ŋ</span></i><i>ga</i>. The DR irrealis medials end with the dubitative clitic =<i>ti</i> which in other circumstances is used sentence finally to indicate a doubt or lack of knowledge about the certainty of an event. It would appear that using a realis medial focusses on the temporal relationship between the medial and final clauses regardless of the certainty or conditionality of the prior event, whereas using an irrealis medial adds focus on the uncertainty. Our English bias leads us to want to use the irrealis forms far more than the Menya naturally do. The distinction in usage would be more dependent on the pragmatics (speaker preference) than on the semantics of the events involved.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>When the related generic <i>whenever</i> relationship is communicated, Menya uses an irrealis verb form in both the dependent medial and the final clauses but in these instances the generic clitic =<i>tqe </i>(with DR forms, =<i>qe</i> with the Same Referent forms) instead of the dubitative =<i>ti.</i> This accords with the fact that generic statements (even about past ancestral behaviour) are typically encoded as irrealis rather than realis.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Carl Whitehead<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US>From:</span></b><span lang=EN-US> Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org> <b>On Behalf Of </b>Sergey Loesov<br><b>Sent:</b> June 12, 2022 1:00 AM<br><b>To:</b> lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org<br><b>Subject:</b> [Lingtyp] IF and WHEN in the future<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:8.0pt;line-height:11.75pt'><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>Dear colleagues,</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:8.0pt;line-height:11.75pt'><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>In Babylonian Akkadian corpora of the 1<sup>st</sup> millennium BC the conjununction <i>kī</i> is claimed to mean both ‘if’ and ‘when’ in the future-time clauses. Some people believe that clause-initial <i>kī</i> is ‘if’, while <i>kī</i> as a preverb is ‘when’. The evidence does not always confirm this claim. One immediately thinks about the German <i>wenn</i>, which is assumed to say both ‘if’ and ‘when’ in the future. What shall we make of it? Is it possible that language does not oppose a future condition and a future temporal clause? If yes, how come?</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:8.0pt;line-height:11.75pt'><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>Best,</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:8.0pt;line-height:11.75pt'><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>Sergey </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></body></html>