Newsgroups: sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!hookup!uwm.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!uknet!festival!edcogsci!iad
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Subject: English verb tenses and Georgian case
Message-ID: <D5I77q.Iq8@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK
References: <3jvunv$o1f@netnews.upenn.edu> <D5FBwH.700@tigadmin.ml.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 22:45:24 GMT
Lines: 65

In article <D5FBwH.700@tigadmin.ml.com> pardoej@lonnds.ml.com writes:
>I think the point is that it's not clear whether we should count "I
>will go" as the future tense of "go" or as a phrase made from two verbs.

The two are not incompatible.  It could be an analytical form,
consisting of a main verb and a conjugated auxiliary.

>After all, if "I will go" is the future tense why isn't "I must go"
>the "debitive(?) tense" and "I can go" the "potentive(??) tense"

Because what tense is all about is temporal precedence, and _must_
and _can_ have nothing to do with that.  _will_ and _shall_ do, in
a way, but they also have a modal side, which is why they are
considered to be modal rather than temporal categories.

The interesting question is, of course, to what extent the modal
nature of the Germanic future is a universal thing rather than an
idiosyncratic feature (that's from the point of view of semantics,
not syntax).  What is clear is that there is a semantic reason for
the asymmetry between the past and the future, which is common to
natural languages.  (It's artificial languages, such as Esperanto,
that tend to have symmetrical tense systems.)

[re _Georgian Syntax_ by Alice Harris]
>Georgian is an ergative language, which in crude terms means that the
>subject of an intransitive verb takes the same form as the object of
>a transitive verb,

Yes ... however, Georgian is not ergative, it's split ergative, which
means that this pattern only obtains in the aorist and the optative
and that there's more to it than just transitivity.

>(i.e. they say "me go" rather than "I go").

That's _mi-w-di-war_ (preverb + 1Sg prefix + root + 1Sg copula).
I don't see how the Georgian subject marker _w-_ can be compared
to the English _me_.  Where does that leave the Georgian _m-_?

> The patterns are roughly:
>
>    he-AGENT likes she-PATIENT
>    she-PATIENT goes
>
>Typcially -AGENT is marked by putting the noun in the "ergative case" and
>-PATIENT by leaving it in the "nominative".

Did you say you had read the book?  There's no ergative marking in the
present tense.  Ever.  Besides, any verb which could be glossed as _like_
would most likely be a Class 4 verb, so its subject would be *dative*,
no matter what the screeve (the mood/tense).

>As for the number of tenses in English I reckon there are 4 * 2 * 2:
>
>4: present, future, past, conditional
>2: continuous, non-continuous
>2: perfective, imperfective
           ***  **       ***
Oops.  I take it that was supposed to be `perfect' vs `non-perfect'.
Not even remotely the same thing.

-- 
`"Na, na ... ah mean, *no wey*, wi aw due respect, ma lady," stammers Joe.'
Ivan A Derzhanski (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk)    (J Stuart, _Auld Testament Tales_)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,   Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House E113, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Pk Rd, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
