[Lingtyp] Co-expression of future and past (Jack Rueter)
Jack Rueter
rueter.jack at gmail.com
Wed Dec 19 19:09:27 UTC 2018
In Erzya the contrastive demonstrative ”tona” (тона) ’that/the other’ is used in combination with temporal units ”nedlja/targo” (недля/тарго) ’week’, ”ije” (ие) ’year’, ”pinge” (пинге) ’century’ to mean both next (week/year/century) and last (week/year/century).
similarly the distal demonstrative might be used by some speakers to express the next tier, i.e. two X from now.
This strategy, however, is not used in combination with the word ”či" (чи) 'day'. While ”te+či" (течи) ’today’ can be broken into ’this’ + ’day’, ”tona či” would mean ’the after world’.
Yours,
Jack Rueter
Sent from my iPhone
> On 12 Dec 2018, at 19.00, lingtyp-request at listserv.linguistlist.org wrote:
>
> Send Lingtyp mailing list submissions to
> lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> lingtyp-request at listserv.linguistlist.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> lingtyp-owner at listserv.linguistlist.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Lingtyp digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Co-expression of future and past (Yukinori Kimoto)
> 2. Re: Co-expression of future and past (Michael Daniel)
> 3. The relation between word order and discourse-based object
> marking (Shira Tal)
> 4. Re: Co-expression of future and past (Valenzuela, Pilar)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 15:50:18 +1100
> From: Yukinori Kimoto <yk.kimoto at gmail.com>
> To: Lauren Reed <lauren.reed at anu.edu.au>
> Cc: "lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org"
> <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] Co-expression of future and past
> Message-ID: <AA2DAA57-878E-4786-B401-1600A6E34142 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> Hi Lauren,
>
> In Iraya, a Philippine language spoken in Mindoro has developed "present vs. non-present" tense system, in which the infix <in> marks both past and future, and the basic forms signal present.
>
> The infix originally marked past ~ anterior, not future, and in fact most languages spoken in northern part of the Philippines seem to follow that system, but Iraya extended the meaning to cover the future sense. The ambiguity between the past and future readings is resolved by the use of preverbal element "batay" (future).
>
> Nay ʔ<in>inəm ʔag sapaʔ ʔaray ʔumaga.
> 1SG <TR.non-pesent>drink DET water today morning.
> 'I drank the water this morning.'
>
> Nay batay ʔ<in>inəm ʔag sapaʔ girabas.
> 1SG FUT <TR.non-pesent>drink DET water tomorrow.
> 'I'll drink the water tomorrow.'
>
> Nay ʔinəm-ən ʔag sapaʔ ŋuna.
> 1SG drink-TR.present DET water now
> 'I am drinking the water now.'
>
> You can refer to the following article.
>
> Reid, Lawrence A. 2017. Re-evaluating the Position of Iraya Among Philippine Languages. Liao, Hsiu-chuan (ed.) Issues in Austronesian historical linguistics. JSEALS special publication no.1. pp.23-47 (Available online)
>
> All the best,
>
> Yuki
>
>> 2018/12/11 10:37、Lauren Reed <lauren.reed at anu.edu.au>のメール:
>>
>> Dear colleagues,
>>
>> My colleague Alan Rumsey and I are working on a small sign language in Western Highlands, Papua New Guinea. The language has a marker which appears to express either remote future or remote past. This co-expression is attributed by users to the fact that both far future and far past events occur many sleep-wake cycles from now.
>>
>> I am interested in hearing of any other examples you may be aware of where languages overtly mark both future and past with the same marker (whether this be remote or not).
>>
>> Best regards
>> Lauren
>>
>> ---
>> Lauren Reed
>> Australian National University
>> laurenwreed.com
>> +61 438 583 808
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lingtyp mailing list
>> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>
>
>
> ***************************************
> 木本幸憲
> 名古屋大学大学院 人文学研究科
> 日本学術振興会特別研究員(PD)
>
> Yukinori Kimoto, Ph.D
> Graduate School of Humanities, Nagoya University
> JSPS Postdoctoral Research Fellow
> Visiting scholar, University of Melbourne
> e-mail: yk.kimoto at gmail.com
> phone: +81-90-6370-2777
> ***************************************
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 10:21:25 +0300
> From: Michael Daniel <misha.daniel at gmail.com>
> To: yk.kimoto at gmail.com
> Cc: lauren.reed at anu.edu.au, "list, typology"
> <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] Co-expression of future and past
> Message-ID:
> <CABAHGwfdmsVm19xWvdaF_zuhN-Af2NHZYFSPQH660TLdLnEdTA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Hi,
>
> I think that the example from Iraya, if counted, potentially extends the
> applicability of the original query - depending on details. From Yuki's
> description, batay may not to be a fully lexical item but a future word,
> similar to plural words, in that it expresses the meaning of pure future
> rather than 'tomorrow', 'soon' etc. If this is so, it would be important to
> know whether batay is obligatorily used when the form has future time
> reference, or it is optional in all contexts.
>
> If it is obligatory, I do not see much difference from e.g. case of Archi,
> East Caucasian, where the basic form with future reference (suffix -qi,
> called potential in Kibrik et al 1977) is derived from the basic form with
> perfective reference (various morphological processes), as Lo give.PFV ->
> Lo-qi give.PFV-FUT.
>
> And even if bataya is optional with future reference but is a function word
> rather than a temporal adverb, I would see the case of Iraya as
> intermediate between the anonymous language of Western Highlands and Archi
> - simply by the assumedly grammatical (function word) nature of bataya. The
> distribution of bataya may also be important in this respect (combines with
> non-finite forms or not, etc.)
>
> Of course, I may be wrong in assuming bataya being a function word - then
> more details are needed.
>
> Michael Daniel
>
>
>
> ср, 12 дек. 2018 г. в 08:02, Yukinori Kimoto <yk.kimoto at gmail.com>:
>
>> Hi Lauren,
>>
>> In Iraya, a Philippine language spoken in Mindoro has developed "present
>> vs. non-present" tense system, in which the infix <in> marks both past and
>> future, and the basic forms signal present.
>>
>> The infix originally marked past ~ anterior, not future, and in fact most
>> languages spoken in northern part of the Philippines seem to follow that
>> system, but Iraya extended the meaning to cover the future sense. The
>> ambiguity between the past and future readings is resolved by the use of
>> preverbal element "batay" (future).
>>
>> Nay ʔ<in>inəm ʔag sapaʔ ʔaray ʔumaga.
>> 1SG <TR.non-pesent>drink DET water today morning.
>> 'I drank the water this morning.'
>>
>> Nay batay ʔ<in>inəm ʔag sapaʔ girabas.
>> 1SG FUT <TR.non-pesent>drink DET water tomorrow.
>> 'I'll drink the water tomorrow.'
>>
>> Nay ʔinəm-ən ʔag sapaʔ ŋuna.
>> 1SG drink-TR.present DET water now
>> 'I am drinking the water now.'
>>
>> You can refer to the following article.
>>
>> Reid, Lawrence A. 2017. Re-evaluating the Position of Iraya Among
>> Philippine Languages. Liao, Hsiu-chuan (ed.) Issues in Austronesian
>> historical linguistics. JSEALS special publication no.1. pp.23-47
>> (Available online)
>>
>> All the best,
>>
>> Yuki
>>
>>> 2018/12/11 10:37、Lauren Reed <lauren.reed at anu.edu.au>のメール:
>>>
>>> Dear colleagues,
>>>
>>> My colleague Alan Rumsey and I are working on a small sign language in
>> Western Highlands, Papua New Guinea. The language has a marker which
>> appears to express either remote future or remote past. This co-expression
>> is attributed by users to the fact that both far future and far past events
>> occur many sleep-wake cycles from now.
>>>
>>> I am interested in hearing of any other examples you may be aware of
>> where languages overtly mark both future and past with the same marker
>> (whether this be remote or not).
>>>
>>> Best regards
>>> Lauren
>>>
>>> ---
>>> Lauren Reed
>>> Australian National University
>>> laurenwreed.com
>>> +61 438 583 808
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Lingtyp mailing list
>>> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>>> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>>
>>
>>
>> ***************************************
>> 木本幸憲
>> 名古屋大学大学院 人文学研究科
>> 日本学術振興会特別研究員(PD)
>>
>> Yukinori Kimoto, Ph.D
>> Graduate School of Humanities, Nagoya University
>> JSPS Postdoctoral Research Fellow
>> Visiting scholar, University of Melbourne
>> e-mail: yk.kimoto at gmail.com
>> phone: +81-90-6370-2777
>> ***************************************
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lingtyp mailing list
>> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20181212/6910908f/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 12:37:59 +0200
> From: Shira Tal <shira.tal1 at mail.huji.ac.il>
> To: lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> Subject: [Lingtyp] The relation between word order and discourse-based
> object marking
> Message-ID:
> <CAABfwBvZFve0OX83hXAUBZZ9Q+LyrwmQ3v4CUXfN6BcJi8HhKA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Dear all,
>
> I am working on an experimental project on the effect of discourse status
> on object marking, and would love to get your help with a question I'm
> concerned with.
>
> In different languages, object marking is affected by unexpected discourse
> status of arguments (e.g., topical objects in Persian, as suggested by
> Dalrymple & Nikolaeva (2011)). I am interested in the emergence of such
> systems.
>
> According to the literature I'm familiar with, topicality-based marking
> often goes hand in hand with change of word order. For example, topical
> objects can be initially marked only when they are dislocated. According to
> Iemmolo (2010), this is the case with different Romance languages. Later
> on, such marking can be extended to other objects which share features of
> topicality-worthiness (e.g., animacy and definiteness), and word order
> restrictions are lost.
>
> Does anyone know of any other languages in which discourse-based object
> marking is restricted (or was initially restricted) to particular word
> orders?
>
> Alternatively, does anyone know of any language in which, diachronically,
> the effect of discourse status on differential object marking was
> direct? By "direct" I mean that marking occurred in situ in the earliest
> stages of grammaticalization without having gone through word-order
> restrictions earlier.
>
> Many thanks in advance,
>
> Shira Tal
>
> Ph.D. Student, Dept. of Cognitive Science
>
> Hebrew University of Jerusalem
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20181212/567242bd/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 12:37:53 +0000
> From: "Valenzuela, Pilar" <valenzuela at chapman.edu>
> To: Lauren Reed <lauren.reed at anu.edu.au>,
> "lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org"
> <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] Co-expression of future and past
> Message-ID: <41dc546590bc4cde8de360aee49548b0 at chapman.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Hi Lauren,
>
>
> Similarly to Hindi, in Shipibo-Konibo (Panoan, Peru) the word bakish 'one day from today' translates as 'tomorrow' or 'yesterday.'
>
>
> 1) Ea=ra bakish ka-yat-ai.
>
> 1.ABS=DIR.EV one.day.from.today go-tomorrow.FUT-IPFV
>
> 'I will go tomorrow.'
>
>
> 2) Ea=ra bakish ka-iba-ke.
>
> 1.ABS=DIR.EV one.day.from.today go-REC.PST-PFV
>
> 'I went yesterday.'
>
>
> Saludos,
>
>
> Pilar
>
> ________________________________
> De: Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> en nombre de Lauren Reed <lauren.reed at anu.edu.au>
> Enviado: lunes, 10 de diciembre de 2018 15:37:34
> Para: lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> Asunto: [Lingtyp] Co-expression of future and past
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> My colleague Alan Rumsey and I are working on a small sign language in Western Highlands, Papua New Guinea. The language has a marker which appears to express either remote future or remote past. This co-expression is attributed by users to the fact that both far future and far past events occur many sleep-wake cycles from now.
>
> I am interested in hearing of any other examples you may be aware of where languages overtly mark both future and past with the same marker (whether this be remote or not).
>
> Best regards
> Lauren
>
> ---
> Lauren Reed
> Australian National University
> laurenwreed.com<http://laurenwreed.com>
> +61 438 583 808
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20181212/a8c4b3b7/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of Lingtyp Digest, Vol 51, Issue 15
> ***************************************
More information about the Lingtyp
mailing list