Difference between revisions of "Tense"
| (52 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
The past tense is subdivded between at least three sets of possible morphemes to mark not only that the utterance is past tense but also the source of information, a grammatical category known as '''evidentiality'''. | The past tense is subdivded between at least three sets of possible morphemes to mark not only that the utterance is past tense but also the source of information, a grammatical category known as '''evidentiality'''. | ||
| − | We will use the term '''discourse time''' to refer to the time | + | We will use the term '''discourse time''' to refer to the time when someone says something and '''event time''' refers to the time when the event that they are talking about took place. |
==Present== | ==Present== | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
If the event time precedes the discourse time the the sentence is given a past tense interpretation. This is marked using one of three suffixes ''-p'n'', -''s'n'', and ''-s'p'n''. Which suffixes is used depends on the grammatical person and [[#Evidentiality|the source of speakers knowledge.]] | If the event time precedes the discourse time the the sentence is given a past tense interpretation. This is marked using one of three suffixes ''-p'n'', -''s'n'', and ''-s'p'n''. Which suffixes is used depends on the grammatical person and [[#Evidentiality|the source of speakers knowledge.]] | ||
| − | In Mi'gmaq, when a verb is marked for past tense it is marked with a suffix that surfaces after person marking and is followed by additional suffixes that mark [[plurality]]. | + | In Mi'gmaq, when a verb is marked for past tense it is marked with a suffix that surfaces after person marking and is followed by additional suffixes that mark [[Person and number|plurality]]. |
<gl> | <gl> | ||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
</gl> | </gl> | ||
| − | Each ending has two variants depending on their position in the verb. Unless followed by a plural or obvaitive suffix the past tense is marked word-finally. Generally, when word final we drop the final 'n' of the suffix. | + | Each ending has two variants depending on their position in the verb. Unless followed by a plural or obvaitive suffix the past tense is marked word-finally. Generally, when word final we drop the final ''n'' of the suffix. |
<gl> | <gl> | ||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
</gl> | </gl> | ||
| − | When the sentence involves [[Obviation]] the ''-l'' | + | Two exceptions to ''n'' dropping is in conditionals and in embedded sentences. |
| + | |||
| + | <gl> | ||
| + | \gll ulagu etug lugwega-pn\\ | ||
| + | yesterday maybe work.1-PST\\ | ||
| + | \trans yesterday maybe I would have worked (I.e if you had asked) | ||
| + | </gl> | ||
| + | |||
| + | <gl> | ||
| + | \gll teltasi-ap nemia-p'n\\ | ||
| + | think.1-PST see.3>3-PST\\ | ||
| + | \trans I thought that he saw him | ||
| + | </gl> | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | When the sentence involves [[Obviation]], the ''-l'' suffix that marks obviation becomes an long ''-n''. | ||
<gl> | <gl> | ||
| Line 37: | Line 52: | ||
</gl> | </gl> | ||
| − | + | ||
| + | ===Evidentiality=== | ||
| + | In addition to marking that a verb is past tense the speaker must also state the source of their information, this is known as '''evidentiality'''. There are two evidential markers which encode source of information known: the direct (attestive) ''-pn'', the indirect (suppositive) ''-s('p)n''<ref>Little, Carol Rose. 2013. "Evidentiality in Mi'gmaq."</ref>. For a more in depth description see [[Evidentiality]]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ====The direct evidential==== | ||
| + | The direct evidential is the most common suffix used in the past tense and indicates a direct source of evidence. The speaker must participate in the event or witness it in order to use the ''-p'n'' correctly. | ||
<gl> | <gl> | ||
| − | \gll ulagu | + | \gll ulagu tapusijig ma'jat-pn-i'g ji'nm-ug\\ |
| − | yesterday | + | yesterday two leave.vta-(3)-past-pl man-pl |
| − | \trans yesterday | + | \trans Two men left yesterday ( I saw it) |
</gl> | </gl> | ||
| + | |||
| + | Note that the first person participation must involve the conscious participation of the participant. For example if the participant accidently falls asleep and is late for class then s/he may not use the attestive suffix and instead must use the the suppositive evidential. The example below is from Inglis(2002: 49).<ref>Inglis, Stepahnie H. 2002. "Speaker's Experience: A Study of Mi'kmaq Modality''</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | '''Context:''' You arrive late for class after falling asleep | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Teacher:''' Tami e'g-s'p ''where were you?'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''You (Answer 1):''' nepai-ap ''I (purposefully) fell asleep'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''You (Answer 2):''' nepai-as ''I (accidentally) fell asleep'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ====The indirect evidential==== | ||
| + | The indirect suffix ''-s'n'' used to mark that the speaker knows about the verb event either through second hand knowledge, usually by being told about it. It does not refer to the speakers commitment to the truth of the sentence and should not be interpreted as meaning'' x supposedly did it.'' | ||
<gl> | <gl> | ||
| − | + | ulagu tapusajig ma'jat-sn-i'g jinum-ug | |
| − | + | yesterday two leave.3-PST-PL man-PL | |
| − | \trans I | + | \trans two men left yesterday (so I'm told) |
</gl> | </gl> | ||
| − | + | But ''-s'n'' is only used with first and third persons. If either the subject or object is second person, then the deferential evidential ''-s'p'n'' is used. | |
| − | |||
| − | ==== | + | =====Allomorph of the indirect evidential===== |
| − | + | ''-s'p'n'' is an allomorph of the indirect evidential used most commonly with the second person subjects and/or objects to indicate that the addressee has access to the source of knowledge by participating in the verb event under discussion. | |
| − | < | + | <gl> |
| − | + | nestmu'tioq-s'p | |
| + | understood.2.PL-PST | ||
| + | \trans You (plural)understood | ||
| + | </gl> | ||
| − | + | This allomorph can also be used to refer to the addressee as the potential source of knowledge. Inglis (2002)describes this usage as being similar to an English tag question such as 'isn't that right?'<ref>Inglis, Stepahnie H. 2002. "Speaker's Experience: A Study of Mi'kmaq Modality"</ref> | |
| − | + | <gl> | |
| + | nemia'-s'p\\ | ||
| + | see.3>3-PST\\ | ||
| + | \trans He saw him, didn't he? | ||
| + | </gl> | ||
| − | + | ===Past Tense in Questions=== | |
| + | Only the indirect evidential marker can be used in [[questions]]. This reflects the lack of information of the speaker and thus solicits confirmation or information from the addressee. | ||
| − | - | + | <gl> |
| + | wigtmu-s’p go'gli'gwtjewei gisna nme’jewei\\ | ||
| + | like.taste.of.2-PST chicken or fish\\ | ||
| + | \trans Did you like chicken or fish? | ||
| + | </gl> | ||
| − | + | <gl> | |
| − | + | wigteg-'s go'gli'gwtjewei gisna nme’jewei\\ | |
| − | s' | + | like.taste.of.2-PST chicken or fish\\ |
| + | \trans Did you like chicken or fish? | ||
| + | </gl> | ||
| − | === The Past Tense embedded under verbs of personal experience === | + | ===The Past Tense embedded under verbs of personal experience=== |
The matrix verb can restrict the surfacing of suffixes on the embedded verb. For example, a suppositive suffix cannot be used when embedded under the verb thought when the subject is first person. | The matrix verb can restrict the surfacing of suffixes on the embedded verb. For example, a suppositive suffix cannot be used when embedded under the verb thought when the subject is first person. | ||
| − | |||
| − | + | <gl> | |
| + | teltasi-ap nemia-p’n/*-s'n\\ | ||
| + | think.1-PST see.3>3-PST\\ | ||
| + | \trans I thought that he saw him\\ | ||
| + | </gl> | ||
| − | + | <gl> | |
| − | < | + | nutmai-ap nemia-s’n/*-p'n\\ |
| + | think.1-attest.pst see.3>3-sups.past\\ | ||
| + | I heard (was told) that he saw him\\ | ||
| + | </gl> | ||
| − | === Negation in the Past=== | + | ===Negation in the Past=== |
| − | All suffixes can appear under negation in the past | + | All suffixes can appear under [[negation]] in the past |
<examples> | <examples> | ||
| Line 95: | Line 148: | ||
== References == | == References == | ||
| − | <references /> | + | <references/> |
Latest revision as of 07:30, 28 January 2014
Under Construction
Introduction
Grammatical Tense refers to the expression of time at which a verb is carried out and is usually though of in terms of present, past and future.
The past tense is subdivded between at least three sets of possible morphemes to mark not only that the utterance is past tense but also the source of information, a grammatical category known as evidentiality.
We will use the term discourse time to refer to the time when someone says something and event time refers to the time when the event that they are talking about took place.
Present
If the event time and the discourse time overlap the event is interpreted as present tense. In the present tense the verb is unmarked for tense.
Past Tense
If the event time precedes the discourse time the the sentence is given a past tense interpretation. This is marked using one of three suffixes -p'n, -s'n, and -s'p'n. Which suffixes is used depends on the grammatical person and the source of speakers knowledge.
In Mi'gmaq, when a verb is marked for past tense it is marked with a suffix that surfaces after person marking and is followed by additional suffixes that mark plurality.
negmow nemia'ti-pn-ig They see.3>3-PST-PL
'They saw them'
Each ending has two variants depending on their position in the verb. Unless followed by a plural or obvaitive suffix the past tense is marked word-finally. Generally, when word final we drop the final n of the suffix.
gil nemit-'p you see.2>1-PST
'You(sg)see me'
Two exceptions to n dropping is in conditionals and in embedded sentences.
ulagu etug lugwega-pn yesterday maybe work.1-PST
'yesterday maybe I would have worked (I.e if you had asked)'
teltasi-ap nemia-p'n think.1-PST see.3>3-PST
'I thought that he saw him'
When the sentence involves Obviation, the -l suffix that marks obviation becomes an long -n.
negum nemia-pn-n you see.3>3-PST-OBV
'S/he (sg) sees him/her'
Evidentiality
In addition to marking that a verb is past tense the speaker must also state the source of their information, this is known as evidentiality. There are two evidential markers which encode source of information known: the direct (attestive) -pn, the indirect (suppositive) -s('p)n[1]. For a more in depth description see Evidentiality.
The direct evidential
The direct evidential is the most common suffix used in the past tense and indicates a direct source of evidence. The speaker must participate in the event or witness it in order to use the -p'n correctly.
ulagu tapusijig ma'jat-pn-i'g ji'nm-ug yesterday two leave.vta-(3)-past-pl man-pl
'Two men left yesterday ( I saw it)'
Note that the first person participation must involve the conscious participation of the participant. For example if the participant accidently falls asleep and is late for class then s/he may not use the attestive suffix and instead must use the the suppositive evidential. The example below is from Inglis(2002: 49).[2]
Context: You arrive late for class after falling asleep
Teacher: Tami e'g-s'p where were you?
You (Answer 1): nepai-ap I (purposefully) fell asleep
You (Answer 2): nepai-as I (accidentally) fell asleep
The indirect evidential
The indirect suffix -s'n used to mark that the speaker knows about the verb event either through second hand knowledge, usually by being told about it. It does not refer to the speakers commitment to the truth of the sentence and should not be interpreted as meaning x supposedly did it.
ulagu tapusajig ma'jat-sn-i'g jinum-ug
yesterday two leave.3-PST-PL man-PL
'two men left yesterday (so I'm told)'
But -s'n is only used with first and third persons. If either the subject or object is second person, then the deferential evidential -s'p'n is used.
Allomorph of the indirect evidential
-s'p'n is an allomorph of the indirect evidential used most commonly with the second person subjects and/or objects to indicate that the addressee has access to the source of knowledge by participating in the verb event under discussion.
nestmu'tioq-s'p
understood.2.PL-PST
'You (plural)understood'
This allomorph can also be used to refer to the addressee as the potential source of knowledge. Inglis (2002)describes this usage as being similar to an English tag question such as 'isn't that right?'[3]
nemia'-s'p
see.3>3-PST
'He saw him, didn't he?'
Past Tense in Questions
Only the indirect evidential marker can be used in questions. This reflects the lack of information of the speaker and thus solicits confirmation or information from the addressee.
wigtmu-s’p go'gli'gwtjewei gisna nme’jewei
like.taste.of.2-PST chicken or fish
'Did you like chicken or fish?'
wigteg-'s go'gli'gwtjewei gisna nme’jewei
like.taste.of.2-PST chicken or fish
'Did you like chicken or fish?'
The Past Tense embedded under verbs of personal experience
The matrix verb can restrict the surfacing of suffixes on the embedded verb. For example, a suppositive suffix cannot be used when embedded under the verb thought when the subject is first person.
teltasi-ap nemia-p’n/*-s'n\\
think.1-PST see.3>3-PST
'I thought that he saw him'
nutmai-ap nemia-s’n/*-p'n
think.1-attest.pst see.3>3-sups.past
I heard (was told) that he saw him
Negation in the Past
All suffixes can appear under negation in the past <examples>
Future Tense
The future referse to events that are expected to take place after the discourse time. Note that a key distinction between the future and other tenses is that the future tense refers not to actual events but only to hypothetical situations. The future is expressed using a distinct set of person markers then the past and the present. <> Third person participants in the future have two possible endings depending on the verb.
Future and Negation
The future suffixes are not used in the negative future. Instead the future is marked using a distinct negative particle. See Negation for further discussion