Zompist Bboard Again

1, 2, & 3 are all happening at 2. The speaker is speaking at 2 and is looking forward in time to what is about to happen (#3) or or looking back in time to what just happened (#1).

The speaker starts "going to fix" at the beginning of the first red arrow (#1) and continues to do so till the moment he actually starts fixing


(1)I AM having been going to fix...
(2)I AM going to fix...
(3)I AM going to be going to fix

(4)I AM having been fixing... (i.e. I have been fixing)
(5)I AM fixing...
(6)I AM going to be fixing...

(7)I AM having been having fixed...
(8)I AM having fixed...
(9)I AM going to be having fixed

em3ry wrote: ↑Wed Jan 19, 2022 4:51 pm The speaker starts "going to fix" at the beginning of the first red arrow (#1) and continues to do so till the moment he actually starts fixing

This makes no sense to me. ‘going to fix’ has no duration — it’s merely a statement of something which may or may not take place in the future. Accordingly it is impossible to ‘start’ ‘going to fix’ something: either you are going to fix it, or you aren’t, and you can’t change from one to the other.

em3ry wrote: ↑Wed Jan 19, 2022 4:51 pm 1, 2, & 3 are all happening at 2. The speaker is speaking at 2 and is looking forward in time to what is about to happen (#3) or or looking back in time to what just happened (#1).

You don't seem to be understanding what I said; you're just repeating your already confusing examples.

Let me try one more time. 3 and 1 are identical: the speaker is sitting there, the fixer (not clear if it's the same person) is sitting there. Nothing is getting fixed; "gonna fix it later" is not an event but a state that continues for 1 / 2 / 3.

Relative tenses could distinguish 1/3: "George was thinking about fixing the radio" vs. "George will be thinking about fixing the radio." If that's what you mean, use real English sentences rather than inventing pseudo-English which is just confusing all of us.

And it's fine if your conlang is more fussy about time and relative time. Just give your examples in your conlang. Ideally, give us some idea why your speakers find it important to distinguish 1 and 3, or 7 and 9.

zompist wrote: ↑Wed Jan 19, 2022 5:11 pm Let me try one more time. 3 and 1 are identical: the speaker is sitting there, the fixer (not clear if it's the same person) is sitting there. Nothing is getting fixed; "gonna fix it later" is not an event but a state that continues for 1 / 2 / 3.

I’d like to highlight this quote — it’s a much better explanation of what I was trying to say.

Relative tenses could distinguish 1/3: "George was thinking about fixing the radio" vs. "George will be thinking about fixing the radio." If that's what you mean, use real English sentences rather than inventing pseudo-English which is just confusing all of us.

I’m not sure this quite works — a distinction between ‘was thinking about’ and ‘is thinking about’ necessarily implies some sort of discontinuous past, where the ‘thinking about’ ceased at some point, but I don’t believe this is what em3ry is thinking.

bradrn wrote: ↑Wed Jan 19, 2022 5:06 pm This makes no sense to me. ‘going to fix’ has no duration — it’s merely a statement of something which may or may not take place in the future. Accordingly it is impossible to ‘start’ ‘going to fix’ something: either you are going to fix it, or you aren’t, and you can’t change from one to the other.

It can have quite some duration if you're a procrastinator who takes time to gather his tools!

well I was "going to" try to explain it to you but since you don't seem to be getting it I guess I will no longer be "going to" do that.

em3ry wrote: ↑Wed Jan 19, 2022 5:23 pm well I was "going to" try to explain it to you but since you don't seem to be getting it I guess I will no longer be "going to" do that.

Well, in that case, in what sense is ‘was going to explain’ (3) prior to ‘explaining’ (5)? This is a case in which the existence of something corresponding to (3) implies that (5) will not occur.

bradrn wrote: ↑Wed Jan 19, 2022 5:15 pm

Relative tenses could distinguish 1/3: "George was thinking about fixing the radio" vs. "George will be thinking about fixing the radio." If that's what you mean, use real English sentences rather than inventing pseudo-English which is just confusing all of us.

I’m not sure this quite works — a distinction between ‘was thinking about’ and ‘is thinking about’ necessarily implies some sort of discontinuous past, where the ‘thinking about’ ceased at some point, but I don’t believe this is what em3ry is thinking.

I believe that's true only if these sentences are used contrastively, perhaps "This morning George was thinking about fixing the radio, but as usual he never got around to it."

But often we use the past tense because, well, we're talking about the past. "We had breakfast but didn't talk much. George was thinking about fixing the radio; I was looking at the schematic for the engine." This is compatible with a narrative where George does fix the radio later on.

em3ry wrote: ↑Wed Jan 19, 2022 4:51 pm 1, 2, & 3 are all happening at 2. The speaker is speaking at 2 and is looking forward in time to what is about to happen (#3) or or looking back in time to what just happened (#1).

The speaker starts "going to fix" at the beginning of the first red arrow (#1) and continues to do so till the moment he actually starts fixing


(1)I AM having been going to fix...
(2)I AM going to fix...
(3)I AM going to be going to fix

(4)I AM having been fixing... (i.e. I have been fixing)
(5)I AM fixing...
(6)I AM going to be fixing...

(7)I AM having been having fixed...
(8)I AM having fixed...
(9)I AM going to be having fixed

I think I sort of understand what is going on here, but let's see how my rephrasal works

1) I was going to fix (but presumably not any more)
2) I am going to fix
3) I am going to be about to fix (although I really don't think this means anything different to 2))

4) I have been fixing (or I have fixed)
5) I am fixing
6) I am going to be fixing (although I don't think this means anything different to 2 or 3, but maybe "I am going to be fixing my bike when John arrives...")

7) I had fixed (different from I had been fixing)
8) I have fixed (but this is different from I have been fixing...)
9) I will have fixed or I will have been fixing...

em3ry wrote: ↑Wed Jan 19, 2022 4:51 pm 1, 2, & 3 are all happening at 2. The speaker is speaking at 2 and is looking forward in time to what is about to happen (#3) or or looking back in time to what just happened (#1).

The speaker starts "going to fix" at the beginning of the first red arrow (#1) and continues to do so till the moment he actually starts fixing


(1)I AM having been going to fix...
(2)I AM going to fix...
(3)I AM going to be going to fix

(4)I AM having been fixing... (i.e. I have been fixing)
(5)I AM fixing...
(6)I AM going to be fixing...

(7)I AM having been having fixed...
(8)I AM having fixed...
(9)I AM going to be having fixed

I get the impression that what em3ry means might be that at each of the three moments 2, 5, and 8 (all of which are defined by being relative to the event of fixing, and conceptualised as durative situations [which is debatable, but that's not the point]), one would be able to look at the respective moment in three different ways, namely retrospective (1, 4, 7), simultaneous (2, 5, 8), and prospective (3, 6, 9). The latter dimension is viewpoint aspect, and the former dimension seems to be a mix of situation aspect and tense. But their interplay is reversed compared to traditional "relative tense", where you'd kinda have an outer layer of tense that is relative to an inner layer that is usually tense but could also be aspect. Here, aspect seems to be the outer layer instead, which is unusual.

And adding to this, the numbers don't really feel to me like they are in the perfect order, probably because they're listed as if they were tense-based (view on relative past, present, relative future), but with aspect, prospective might actually reference an earlier time than retrospective.

If my interpretation is correct, the sentences could be rephrased more or less like the following:

1) I have been going to fix (I've wanted to fix for a while already)
2) I am going to fix (I have already decided and I'm going to start soon)
3) I am about to be going to fix (I'm about to take the decision now, but it will still be a while before I actually start fixing)

4) I have been fixing (for some time already)
5) I am fixing (right now)
6) I am going to be fixing (it will still take some time until I'm finished)

7) I had fixed already (and I'm not in that state anymore somehow, maybe the item got broken once again)
8) I have fixed (and it's done now)
9) I am going to have fixed (and then it will hopefully be done)

Does this clear up some of the confusion?

Do any natlangs have two orthogonal aspect-ish categories? Looking for parallels in them might help.

Zju wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 11:36 am Do any natlangs have two orthogonal aspect-ish categories? Looking for parallels in them might help.

English has three: simple vs progressive, unmarked vs perfect and unmarked vs progressive prospective can all vary orthogonally (at least for me), and all have traditionally been called ‘aspect’.

bradrn wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 4:39 pm English has three: simple vs progressive, unmarked vs perfect and unmarked vs progressive can all vary orthogonally (at least for me), and all have traditionally been called ‘aspect’.

How are "simple vs progressive" and "unmarked vs progressive" different?

Vardelm wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 5:04 pm

bradrn wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 4:39 pm English has three: simple vs progressive, unmarked vs perfect and unmarked vs progressive can all vary orthogonally (at least for me), and all have traditionally been called ‘aspect’.

How are "simple vs progressive" and "unmarked vs progressive" different?

Sorry, that last one should have been ‘unmarked vs prospective’ — i.e. ‘going to’.

Zju wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 11:36 am Do any natlangs have two orthogonal aspect-ish categories? Looking for parallels in them might help.

I don't think it'll help, but Bulgarian has both imperfective/perfective and completive/incompletive, and uses all four possible combinations.

Also English. We have perfect/imperfect and also progressive/non-progressive.

Romance languages have imperfective/perfective in the past tense, and perfect/imperfect all over. (It's not really a perfect any more in French, though.)