Talk:Spatial tense

message: Folks, I hope you don't mind, but I've rewritten a good part of the article. I took a look at the Lojban grammar and started from that. I need to get some Hopi into my head now, and see if I can make room for it, since I only reworded that part -- I have no idea if it's right at all. --Pablo D. Flores 01:26, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Superb! Thanks for doing this! — mark ✎ 08:47, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewriting from a Lojban POV

message: I havent read the article very carefully, but I'm going to ramble here anyway.
In English, it seems that we speak of time often in terms of space.  I am talking about metaphor here.
For instance, the verb go is basically used to speak of movement through space.  However, since we often equate time with space, we have a grammaticalized go that appears as a future marker, as in 
: I'm going to ramble here anyway.  
Go is used to speak of a forward movement in time (toward the future).  As further evidence of this grammaticalization, we can use the time go with the space go: 
: He's going to go to Cambodia someday.
What about prepositions?
* at (1-dimensional): He came at me with a knife. = He came here at 4:00.
* on (2-dimensional): On: Please put on the table. = Please come here on Monday.
* in (3-dimensional): In: I'll put it in a box. = I'll finish it in 4 minutes.
It seems that the spatial dimension is somehow equivalent to the temporal dimension.  At refers to a point in space or time.  On, a 2-dimensional surface or a less point-like temporal referent. In, a 3-dimensional object or a span of time.
Anyway, just some thoughts.  Peace. - Ish ishwar 19:01, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)
:Wow, interesting stuff. Nice examples! You write: 'It seems that the spatial dimension is somehow equivalent to the temporal dimension.' My first thought it that this similarity lies precisely in the fact that we're calling both a dimension. Then of course the question becomes: what exactly is a dimension? Something about which you can make statements of the type you're making above? Or is that a tautology? I don't know (have to think about it more, I guess).
:As for verbs and prepositions being used for movement trought both time and space — intriguing indeed. You call it a metaphor, so you assume a sort primacy of space before time. I think you're absolutely right, but I also think there's more to it. This is one of the areas where the nature of human cognition shines through our use of language (so it's Cognitive linguistics, really). It has to do with our conceptualization of both space and time. I am sure that you will like the thoughts of Leonard Talmy, especially chapter 2 ("Fictive Motion in Language and 'Ception'") and 3 ("How language structures space") of his Toward a Cognitive Semantics. (By the way, you can find the whole book in PDF-format here — don't tell anyone :) ) 
:As for your n-dimensional analysis — it looks beautiful. I'm thinking about it. Kind regards,  — mark ✎ 18:05, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to check out Force Dynamics then. It's just listed on Peer Review, if you have any comments or suggestions, feel free to post them there. Cheers,  — mark ✎ 01:20, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: more on space & time

message: This article still haunts me occasionally. Seeing as I am unable to find any substantiation - except for copies of this article - for the claim that the Hopi language employs spatial tenses, it would seem reasonable to remove in its entirety the paragraph dealing with this language. Any objections? — Itai (talk) 15:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have just removed it. Whorf (1956:158) writes that "There is no such striking difference between Hopi and SAE [Standard American English] about space (...) and probably the apprehension of space is given in substantially that same form by experience irrespective of language." Now only Lojban is left, and the article needs to be sourced, by the way. — mark ✎ 20:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hopi language