10.1244, Qs: 19th Century Lang Views, Tense & Aspect

[LINGUIST Network]

LINGUIST List:  Vol-10-1244. Thu Aug 26 1999. ISSN: 1068-4875.

Subject: 10.1244, Qs: 19th Century Lang Views, Tense & Aspect

Moderators: Anthony Rodrigues Aristar: Wayne State U.<aristar at linguistlist.org>
            Helen Dry: Eastern Michigan U. <hdry at linguistlist.org>
            Andrew Carnie: U. of Arizona <carnie at linguistlist.org>

Reviews: Andrew Carnie: U. of Arizona <carnie at linguistlist.org>

Associate Editors:  Martin Jacobsen <marty at linguistlist.org>
                    Ljuba Veselinova <ljuba at linguistlist.org>
		    Scott Fults <scott at linguistlist.org>
		    Jody Huellmantel <jody at linguistlist.org>
		    Karen Milligan <karen at linguistlist.org>

Assistant Editors:  Lydia Grebenyova <lydia at linguistlist.org>
		    Naomi Ogasawara <naomi at linguistlist.org>
		    James Yuells <james at linguistlist.org>

Software development: John H. Remmers <remmers at emunix.emich.edu>
                      Chris Brown <chris at linguistlist.org>
                      Qian Liao <qian at linguistlist.org>

Home Page:  http://linguistlist.org/


Editor for this issue: Karen Milligan <karen at linguistlist.org>
 ==========================================================================

We'd like to remind readers that the responses to queries are usually
best posted to the individual asking the question. That individual is
then  strongly encouraged to post a summary to the list.   This policy was
instituted to help control the huge volume of mail on LINGUIST; so we
would appreciate your cooperating with it whenever it seems appropriate.

=================================Directory=================================

1)
Date:  Wed, 25 Aug 1999 13:22:29 -0500 (EST)
From:  00hfstahlke at bsuvc.bsu.edu
Subject:  19th c. views of language

2)
Date:  Wed, 25 Aug 1999 18:14:32 GMT
From:  "hassan makhad" <hmakhad at hotmail.com>
Subject:  tense and aspect

-------------------------------- Message 1 -------------------------------

Date:  Wed, 25 Aug 1999 13:22:29 -0500 (EST)
From:  00hfstahlke at bsuvc.bsu.edu
Subject:  19th c. views of language

A doctoral student in our composition and rhetoric program has
approached me for readings on 19th c. attitudes towards language.  He
has in mind the ideologies behind the development of artificial
languages, understandings of the relationship of language and culture,
and the influence of Romantic Nationalist movements.  I'd appreciate
any references people might provide, and I will assemble a list of
these to post later.

Thanks,

Herb Stahlke
Ball State University


-------------------------------- Message 2 -------------------------------

Date:  Wed, 25 Aug 1999 18:14:32 GMT
From:  "hassan makhad" <hmakhad at hotmail.com>
Subject:  tense and aspect


Dear list members,

I am investigating the syntax of tense and aspect systems in Berber (and
othr languages). I have come across an amazing situation with regards to the
interaction between tense and aspect in Tashlhiyt Berber (TB) and Moroccan
Mrabic (MA). Let me try to explain my story. Well, normally, perfective
aspect is  associated with past tense forms of verbs, while imperfectivity
is related to present and future tenses. But look at the following examples:
(1)
Is      n-dd-a       Sbah      s-lbher ?        (Tashlhiyt Berber)
is-it  we-go-perfe.  tomorrow  to-the-sea
"Are we going to the beach tomorrow ?"


(2)
wash       mshi-na       ghdda      l-lbher ?   (moroccan arabic)
is-it      go(perfe)-we  tomorrow   to-the-sea
"Are we going to the beach tomorrow ?"


It is clear in both examples that perfectivity cooccurs with future. The
perfective n-dd-a in (1) and mshi-na in (2) are respectively compatible with
both  "sbah" and "ghdda" which indicate future (time/tense).

However, This cooccurence is impossible in affirmative forms like:

(3a)

n-dd-a       *sbah/idgam               s-lbher           (TB)
we-go-perf.  tomorrow/yesterday       to-the-sea
"We went to the sea yesterday"




(3b)

rad     n-ddu    sbah/*idgam            s-lbher.
fut.    we-go    tomorrow/yesterday     to-the-beach
"We are going to the beach tomorrow."


(4a)

mshi-na        lbareh/*ghdda        l-lbher         (MA)
go(perf)-we    yesterday/tomorrow   to-the-beach
"We went to the beach yesterday."

(4b)

ghadi       n-mshi-w   ghdda/lbareh         l-lbher
fut.        we-go-we   tomorrow/yesterday   to-the-beach
"We will go to the beach tomorrow."



I noticed that the same situation happens in English (what is called polite
forms):


(5)

Should/could/might you  give me a call tomorrow?


Given this situation, is there some kind of a relation between (C)/(question
formation) and temporal categories, the heads T and Asp?

Can you please tell me if similar situations occur in other languages?

The other thing I would like to know about is whether there are some lists
of research groups on tense and aspect and/or the minimalist program.

Thank you very much for your efforts.



---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-10-1244