gary@rochester.UUCP (Gary Cottrell) (10/23/84)
> <> > It is well-known that the Hopi (American Indian) language only has a > present tense, there are no past or future tenses for their verbs. > Surely this is a language deficiency. The same is true of AMSLAN (AMerican Sign LANguage), but whether you are talking about the past or future is clearly communicated by setting up the context in advance. For example, one might say "Yesterday, I see Bill.", which is perfectly grammatical in AMSLAN. I'll bet there's something similar in Hopi. gary cottrell (allegra or seismo)!rochester!gary (UUCP) gary@rochester (ARPA)
liz@umcp-cs.UUCP (Liz Allen) (10/25/84)
Gary has brought up one of my favorite subjects -- sign language. In article <2479@rochester.UUCP> gary@rochester.UUCP (Gary Cottrell) writes: >> It is well-known that the Hopi (American Indian) language only has a >> present tense, there are no past or future tenses for their verbs. >> Surely this is a language deficiency. > >The same is true of AMSLAN (AMerican Sign LANguage), but whether you are >talking about the past or future is clearly communicated by setting up the >context in advance. For example, one might say "Yesterday, I see Bill.", >which is perfectly grammatical in AMSLAN. I'll bet there's something similar >in Hopi. That's close. There actually are signs for future and past so you don't have to be more specific (as in "yesterday"). So, even though verbs in sign language do not carry tense, the time is not missing. Word order tends to be: time, object, subject, verb. But that's only roughly true since the real rule is to set the scene and then describe the action. Gary's sentance should probably read: "Yesterday, Bill I see." When I was learning how to change English word order into sign word order (in a sign language class at Galludet College, in Washington DC), we found it difficult to come up with the proper word order, but when the teacher would give it to us, it seemed so right! Other signs which indicate time in sign language are the signs meaning "just now" (I'm referring to the sign that most people say means "recently", but the deaf don't use it that way!!!) and "finished". The first is used to indicate something that just happened. The second is a very important sign which indicates completed action. The next sign language class I would take (if I ever had the time) takes most of the semester to explain the use of this one sign! I certainly haven't been able to figure it out... I have seen it used in situations I wouldn't think appropriate and not used in other situations I would have thought perfect! In some ways, I'm not sure that anyone really understands sign language grammer -- I don't think anyone has really analyzed it completely. In the Galludet classes, a lot of the lessons seemed based more on examples than rules and questions I ask of people like interpreters will often result in contradictory answers... It doesn't seem like anyone has really verbalized it -- though it could be just a lack of understanding on my part. -- -Liz Allen Univ of Maryland, College Park MD Usenet: ...!seismo!umcp-cs!liz Arpanet: liz@maryland "This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all" -- 1 John 1:5
dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (10/25/84)
<> > > It is well-known that the Hopi (American Indian) language only has a > > present tense, there are no past or future tenses for their verbs. > > Surely this is a language deficiency. > > The same is true of AMSLAN (AMerican Sign LANguage), but whether you are > talking about the past or future is clearly communicated by setting up the > context in advance. For example, one might say "Yesterday, I see Bill.", Chinese is so purely analytic that it lacks inflection altogether. Nouns are the same in plural and singular, verbs carry no tense, pronouns even lack gender (he, she, and it are all the same word). A Chinese friend, Dr. Shiang-Tai Tuan, is fond of pointing out that English does the same for nouns like "sheep," verbs like "to hit" (except in the present participle), and pronouns like "we" and "they." Finno-Ugric languages like Estonian and Hungarian (if memory serves) are highly inflected but lack gender in pronouns. It's remarkable how structures we tacitly consider natural or even essential are so radically discarded by non-Indoeuropean languages (and, presumably, vice versa). By the way, Czech inflects so determinedly that verbs carry gender, even in the first person. But no distinction is made between leg and foot, arm and hand, or toe and finger. So a naive machine translation from English into Czech and back might convert "the fingers of both hands" into "the toes of both arms"! D Gary Grady Duke University Computation Center, Durham, NC 27706 (919) 684-4146 USENET: {decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary
llfe@hound.UUCP (L.FENG) (10/26/84)
Gee, Chinese has very few, if any past and future tense forms of verbs, and I never considered it deficient. Would you consider defining "deficient" in something other than a reference to English? Perhaps English is deficient? I always did consider having to conjucate verbs a deficiency! :-) -- From the lunch hour of houxz!llf.
scw@cepu.UUCP (10/26/84)
In article <2479@rochester.UUCP> gary@rochester.UUCP (Gary Cottrell) writes: >> <> >> It is well-known that the Hopi (American Indian) language only has a >> present tense, there are no past or future tenses for their verbs. >> Surely this is a language deficiency. > >The same is true of AMSLAN (AMerican Sign LANguage), but whether you are >talking about the past or future[...]. I'll bet there's something similar >in Hopi. Ditto with Vietnamese (and I think with all the dialects of Chinese) tense is not indicated with the verb but by adding a word to the sentence indicating relative time (I see him. I <past> see him. I <future> see him.) one could argue that the <time> indicator is actually transforming the tense of the verb. But verbs take no case/gender/person either. This is not a deficiency, just a different structure. An inverse is the fact that English does not differentiate 'elder {sister,brother}' vs 'younger sibling' or 'my fathers elder brother' vs 'my fathers younger brother' this is not a deficiency in English but rather a difference in emphasis (Vietnamese cultural values vs English/Americian cultural values). -- Stephen C. Woods (VA Wadsworth Med Ctr./UCLA Dept. of Neurology) uucp: { {ihnp4, uiucdcs}!bradley, hao, trwrb, sdcrdcf}!cepu!scw ARPA: cepu!scw@ucla-cs location: N 34 3' 9.1" W 118 27' 4.3"