Abstract

In Tlichǫ Yatii (Dogrib), spoken in the Northwest Territories, Canada, the periphrastic particle ile, which has been considered a past marker, is optional in the clause. As in other Dene (Athapaskan) languages, viewpoint aspect is encoded morphologically on the verb. These two facts can give the impression that aspect is the only obligatory temporal category in this language and that other temporal distinctions are peripheral. I argue, on the contrary, that a future/non-future distinction is a necessary element of well-formed clauses, that Future, rather than Past/Non-Past Tense or Aspect, serves as an anchor in the sense of Enc (1987), and that anchoring does not necessarily correlate with the prominence of a temporal category in the sense of Bhat (1999). I adduce evidence in support of these proposals from the contrasting obligatoriness of past and future marking in predicates, as well as from word order facts.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.