Tense

[R. Rankin]

Hi Pat,

I'll generate a .pdf file and email it if that's OK.
The paper is about the Quapaw language, but the
statements/arguments work just about as well for
Dakotan too.  This draft is pretty rough.  I was asked
to talk on the subject while I was a Fellow at the
Research Centre for Linguistic Typology in Melbourne.
I cobbled it together using a Quapaw text I had
analyzed for a sketch of that language, an Omaha text
from James Owen Dorsey (1890) and maybe one or two
others.  It doesn't set out to "prove" that Siouan
lacks tense as a verbal category but rather
concentrates on the use of aspect, constitutent order,
temporal conjunctions and adverbs, as well as
grammaticalized particles to convey time distinctions.
It was strictly an oral presentation to accompany
typological surveys of tense and time being dong there
by Fritz Serzisko of the U. of Koeln.

Best,

Bob Rankin

----- Original Message -----
From: warr0120 <warr0120 at umn.edu>
To: <siouan at lists.colorado.edu>
Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 5:49 PM
Subject: Re: Tense


> Hi Bob,
>
> I'd love to see your draft paper on modalities and
aspect in Dakota!
>
> Pat Warren
>
> On 4 Apr 2003, R. Rankin wrote:
> > I think that in those Siouan languages where tense
> > morphology may actually exist, it represents an
> > innovation.  Often it seems to involve an
auxiliary,
> > *?uN 'do, be' with one or more prefixes that has
become
> > grammaticalized.  There really are no past tense
> > morphemes, per se.  I would say that this statement
> > about the lack of tense is true even for the
so-called
> > 'future'.  If you ask for a sentence in future
time,
> > you will normally get a reply with (iN)-ktA in
Dakota
> > and its equivalent in other languages.  But this
affix
> > means both more and less than 'future tense'.
You'll
> > also get it with conditionals, modals 'may, might'
and
> > other utterances that make it clear that what it
really
> > marks is 'irrealis mode'.  It just marks something
that
> > hasn't actually happened.
> >
> > There is plenty of morphology that marks modalities
and
> > plenty that marks aspect (progressive/continuative,
> > habitual, perfect, etc.).  Ordinarily, if time
> > reference is really required, it is provided with
an
> > adverb or a temporal conjunction.  I did a talk on
this
> > when I was in Australia and can send a copy of the
> > draft if you like.  It isn't very polished.
> >
> > It is the progressive or continuative aspect that
> > usually uses the positional auxiliaries (although
> > Mauricio Mixco also finds it in use with other
> > constructions as well in his Mandan sketch).  But
> > action of the verb can be progressive in the past
or
> > the future as well as the present, so the
positionals
> > don't necessarily mark present.
> >
> > The traditional grammarians who produced the
earlier
> > (often very good) grammars of Dakota, Lakota, etc.
used
> > terms like 'future' because they didn't distinguish
> > 'kind of action' from 'time of action' in their
> > grammars.  It is still used to translate ktA today
by
> > some.  But, as I say, I don't think it's tense
per-se.
> >
> > >Most often, the 3Pl subject form -ire (or -hire)
is
> > given to indicate the
> > subject.  However, in getting forms this actually
is
> > the past tense.
> >
> > Jagu aire?
> > Jagu e-ire?
> > What say-3Pl?
> > What did they say?
> >
> > Jagu anaaNk?
> > Jagu e-naaNk?
> > What say-3Pl?
> > What are they saying?
> >
> > HC may operate differently from LAK in this regard,
but
> > I'd guess that the difference between the two above
> > examples would be non-continuing vs. continuing
action,
> > not tense.  Try "what do they say?" for the first
and
> > "what were they saying" for the second and see what
> > emerges.  I can't begin to predict, but it should
be
> > interesting to contrast all four meanings.
> >
> > >I think Miner is the only one that correctly lists
> > these forms.  Yet there
> > is no extensive treatment of tense in his work.
This
> > seems to be the only
> > form that indicates something took place in the
past
> > rather than not in the
> > future.Past can be indicated through the absence of
the
> > positional in other cases.
> >
> > waNk  naNka naNwaNnaNks^aNnaN.
> >
> > waNk  naNka  naNwaN-naNk-s^aNaN.
> >
> > man   that (sit) sing-POS (sit)-Declarative
> >
> > That man is singing (seated).
> >
> > waNk naNka naNwaNnaN.
> >
> > waNk naNka naNwaN- naN
> >
> > man that (sit) sing- Declarative.
> >
> > That man sang.
> >
> > How about 'that man was singing' and 'that man
sings
> > well', where the first is progressive but in the
past
> > and the second is present but not progressive.  I
> > really wonder if you'll get any overt tense
morphology.
> >
> > Bob Rankin
> >
> > >In the above forms the demonstrative can be
replaced
> > with the indefenite
> > article -iz^aN or the defenite article -ra with the
> > same effect.
> >
> > >My question is if you all think there is more to
tense
> > in Ho-Chunk than what i have read?  What is
happening
> > in other Siouan langauges.  I believe I read in a
paper
> > somewhere that Lakhota also makes a
future-non-future
> > distinction.  Do positionals have a similar effect
(I'm
> > especially curious
> > about Chiwere)?  Thank you.
> >
> > >On a side note, a budding linguist like myself,
and as
> > a person with a
> > vested interest in Ho-Chunk langauge study I really
> > appreciate this List.
> > You all have no idea how much more efficient and
> > valuable my studies have become based on the
archives
> > and current comments on this List.  Thank you all
> > again.
> >
> > Henning Garvin
> > UW-Madison
> > Anthropology/Linguistics
> >
> >
> >
>
>