Would it be odd for a conlang to have a habitual but no perfect?

This forum is for constructed languages, both those invented by UniLang members and those already existing.

Moderators: Ashucky, Dormouse559

xBlackHeartx
Posts: 91
Joined: 2017-02-23, 22:11
Country: US United States (United States)

Would it be odd for a conlang to have a habitual but no perfect?

Postby xBlackHeartx » 2018-12-28, 20:35

I know there's languages out there that don't use aspect much if at all (such as German), but personally I just like the distinction between habitual versus non-habitual actions.

This, however, creates a minor issue in my conlang. I don't really see much point in my conlang having a perfect. It has relative tense, in fact, there's a total of 5 different relative tenses to choose from, which means that there's functionally 5 different past tenses. Well, remote pasts anyway, there's also a recent past, but details... Anyway, with my past tense being this detailed it would seem that having a perfect/imperfect distinction would be redundant. To me, it looks like the only reason you would have such a distinction is to indicate to the listener whether or not what you're describing to them is part of a longer sequence of events or not.

Of course, looking at natural languages, I can't seem to find any indication of a language with aspect that doesn't include a perfect/imperfect distinction. Also, I believe that the habitual and progressive are considered sub-types of the imperfect, which means that such a conlang would functionally have an imperfect but no perfect to contrast it with, which would be rather strange. Well, technically my distinction is more habitual/non-habitual, but eh.

Of course, I'm not interested in making a naturalistic conlang, but in my view, if there is something no natural language does, there's probably a very good practical reason for that.

User avatar
razlem
Posts: 2266
Joined: 2011-01-10, 3:28
Real Name: Ben
Gender: male
Location: San Francisco
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Would it be odd for a conlang to have a habitual but no perfect?

Postby razlem » 2018-12-29, 8:06

if there is something no natural language does, there's probably a very good practical reason for that

Just because widely spoken languages don't have habitual without perfect doesn't mean that natural language as a whole can't. We just haven't documented any that have (and there's still plenty of languages to document).

It's difficult to have an "odd" conlang; there's a huge variety of weird things conlangs have done. Since you're not worried about making a naturalistic conlang anyway, I wouldn't get too preoccupied with it. Do some weird things with it and have fun :mrgreen:
American English (en-us)::German (de)::Standard Spanish (es) Swedish (sv) Mandarin (zh)::Choctaw (cho) Finnish (fi) Irish (ir) Arabic (ar)
Image wia wi nehas-kolwatos lae angos! Check out my IAL Angos
Image Contributor to the Houma Language Project
I have a YouTube channel! I talk about languages and stuff: Ben DuMonde

User avatar
Dormouse559
Language Forum Moderator
Posts: 6547
Joined: 2010-05-30, 0:06
Real Name: Matthew
Gender: male
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Would it be odd for a conlang to have a habitual but no perfect?

Postby Dormouse559 » 2018-12-29, 17:30

razlem wrote:Just because widely spoken languages don't have habitual without perfect doesn't mean that natural language as a whole can't. We just haven't documented any that have (and there's still plenty of languages to document).

It's difficult to have an "odd" conlang; there's a huge variety of weird things conlangs have done. Since you're not worried about making a naturalistic conlang anyway, I wouldn't get too preoccupied with it. Do some weird things with it and have fun :mrgreen:

Hear, hear! And if you implement a feature you can't find attested, and it turns out it is somehow impractical, you change it.

Your specific idea of habitual vs. non-habitual sounds plausible to me. The non-habitual presumably has both perfective and imperfective meanings, but context will go a long way when figuring out which one is intended. And where context isn't enough, there are always adverbs and conjunctions.
N'hésite pas à corriger mes erreurs.

xBlackHeartx
Posts: 91
Joined: 2017-02-23, 22:11
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Would it be odd for a conlang to have a habitual but no perfect?

Postby xBlackHeartx » 2018-12-30, 21:19

Thinking about it, Esperanto makes such a distinction (there's a progressive but no perfective), though Esperanto isn't exactly the best conlang ever made, and from my understanding people are using the progressive mood less and less. Oh well.


Return to “Conlangs”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests