8,553
edits
Chlouvānem: Difference between revisions
m
→Use of tenses: Past vs. Perfect
| Line 536: | Line 536: | ||
The Chlouvānem perfect, however, has a broader use than the English one, compare: | The Chlouvānem perfect, however, has a broader use than the English one, compare: | ||
: ''flære dašajildek'' - “yesterday it rained”. Past tense, implied meaning is that there’s nothing that may indicate that yesterday it rained, or it doesn’t influence the speaker in any way. | : ''flære dašajildek'' - “yesterday it rained”. Past tense, implied meaning is that there’s nothing that may indicate that yesterday it rained, or it doesn’t influence the speaker in any way. | ||
: ''flære dašejilda'' - *yesterday it has rained. Perfect tense; while wrong in English, this construction is possible - and, in fact, is frequently heard - though it often only makes sense in a broader context. For example, in a sentence like “yesterday it rained and the path collapsed, so we [two] can’t walk there”, English uses both times a simple past, while Chlouvānem uses the perfect, as the path is still not walkable due to the rain: ''flære menni dašejilda līlta | : ''flære dašejilda'' - *yesterday it has rained. Perfect tense; while wrong in English, this construction is possible - and, in fact, is frequently heard - though it often only makes sense in a broader context. For example, in a sentence like “yesterday it rained and the path collapsed, so we [two] can’t walk there”, English uses both times a simple past, while Chlouvānem uses the perfect, as the path is still not walkable due to the rain: ''flære menni dašejilda līlta viṣustura no, āñjulā gu pepeithnāyou ša''. | ||
Note that the “impact on the present” meaning and the use of evidentials are independent from each other. Using a first inferential, for example, does not change the implications given by the use of perfect or past, though the actual interpretation is often heavily dependent from context: | Note that the “impact on the present” meaning and the use of evidentials are independent from each other. Using a first inferential, for example, does not change the implications given by the use of perfect or past, though the actual interpretation is often heavily dependent from context: | ||
| Line 558: | Line 558: | ||
A notable exception to this use is with so-called “chained actions”, when the second one is a direct consequence of the first and the first one is usually still ongoing; the second one is therefore only a momentane happening inside the broader context of the first, and thus the choice between present and past is once again dependent on the impact on the present. Note that in such cases the two verbs are usually connected with ''no'' instead of ''sama''. Compare: | A notable exception to this use is with so-called “chained actions”, when the second one is a direct consequence of the first and the first one is usually still ongoing; the second one is therefore only a momentane happening inside the broader context of the first, and thus the choice between present and past is once again dependent on the impact on the present. Note that in such cases the two verbs are usually connected with ''no'' instead of ''sama''. Compare: | ||
: ''dašajildek līlta | : ''dašajildek līlta vīkṣṭāṭ no'' - “it rained, and the path collapsed”. Past tense: the path has since been repaired and it is walkable. | ||
: ''dašejilda līlta | : ''dašejilda līlta viṣustura no'' - “it has rained, and the path has collapsed”. Perfect “tense”: the path is not walkable due to it having collapsed. | ||
Both the past and the perfect can be frequentative: | Both the past and the perfect can be frequentative: | ||