Random ideas: Morphosyntax

[kiwikami]

Isn't (some version of) Kiwikami's Hypry a bit like that?

The very first version required tenses to be marked with some agreement indicating what entity's perspective they were from - I'm planning to do the same thing with V4, but haven't figured out how it'll work just yet. Effectively, there were particles such that you'd have "the man hit [1-recent.fut] [2-pst] the dog" meaning "The man is just about to hit the dog (as far as I can see), but from your perspective he has already done so", and there was also a kind of "universal" time which was meant to describe strictly-linear progression (e.g. "from the perspective of a thing that cannot time travel").

[Omzinesý]

A lang has a Bantu-style noun class system. If the class marker precedes the lexical root, the noun is non-generic. If the class marker follows the lexical root, the noun is gereric.

(Idea taken from Pilipino "triggers" in verbs whose location encodes aspect.)

[Creyeditor]

You've probably heard of pluractionality, so how about duactionality, a verbal number used if an event occurs exactly twice?

[Omzinesý]

You've probably heard of pluractionality, so how about duactionality, a verbal number used if an event occurs exactly twice?

Could the same form also mean 'redo'?

Pluractionality also often means that several persons do the same thing separately. Probably that could also be the case with duactionality.

[Creyeditor]

Actually, ANADEW. Mono-Alu (Oceanic) has both duactionality and pluractionality. I thought I invented the word duactionality, but I forgot to google beforehand.

Could the same form also mean 'redo'?

Pluractionality also often means that several persons do the same thing separately. Probably that could also be the case with duactionality.

I like both ideas. The first one could also include things like trying again. The second could be used for dual subjects to indicate separate actions. Dual subjects plus a default verb form would indicate joint action.

[eldin raigmore]

To me “duactionality” suggests “do it again: except, this time, actually do it!”

[Creyeditor]

I see what you did there. Do-actually-ty

[Omzinesý]

All prepositions have a deictic element. You cannot say "In [the] hospital" but you can say "here [in the] hospital" or "there [in the] hospital".
Prepositions are used as perfective prefixes of verbs, too, so you say "A there-kill B." or "A here-kill B." Those deictic elements work as direct and inverse markers. "A there-kill B." means 'A kills B.' i.e. action goes from the focal participant A to the less focal participant B. "A here-kill B." means 'A is killed by B.' i.e. the action comes from the less focal participant to the more focal participant. In imperfective aspect, there is no possibility of inverse marking.

[Creyeditor]

That sounds fascinating. It takes a lot of things that exist in some natlangs and merges them into a unique phenomenon. Cool idea

[Porphyrogenitos]

It seems plausible enough. There is some Amazonian language (I forget which, this was from a morphology practice set) that evolved tense marking from deixis marking: "That man sleep" became interpreted as "That man (in the past) slept), vs. "This man sleep" which became interpreted as "This man (in the present) is sleeping". If that can happen, then surely this can happen.

[eldin raigmore]

It seems plausible enough. There is some Amazonian language (I forget which, this was from a morphology practice set) that evolved tense marking from deixis marking: "That man sleep" became interpreted as "That man (in the past) slept), vs. "This man sleep" which became interpreted as "This man (in the present) is sleeping". If that can happen, then surely this can happen.

Don’t you mean, “If this can happen, then surely that can happen”?

[shimobaatar]

It seems plausible enough. There is some Amazonian language (I forget which, this was from a morphology practice set) that evolved tense marking from deixis marking: "That man sleep" became interpreted as "That man (in the past) slept), vs. "This man sleep" which became interpreted as "This man (in the present) is sleeping". If that can happen, then surely this can happen.

Don’t you mean, “If this can happen, then surely that can happen”?

I interpreted it as "If that (something Porphyrogenitos read about outside of the CBB) can happen, then surely this (something Omzinesý described here in the thread) can happen".