the
utterences were made i.e., in this instance, `she remains tied with the
rope’ and that `the thief is still being held’. Thus the differences
found in these utterences by the use of the past tense marker wya and
we could be termed respectively as indeterminate and determinate past
tenses. |
| All
the illustrative examples cited so far have one thing in common, in that
they refer to an action that was just completed. It is also possible in
Sema to refer to an action that took place long ago, as in : |
pano
as
thawè |
`he
cut the tree (long ago), |
|
|
| This type
of usage is known as remote past. |
Thus
the system of past tense available in Sema could in the first instance
be sub-divided into two, viz., remote vs. immediate past : whereas no
further sub-division of the remote past is possible the latter could be
further sub-divided into four on two different axes, viz : |
|
completive vs. incompletive and |
|
determinative vs indeterminative. |
|
|
We
have so far observed six different shapes of the past tense marker. There
is one more past tense marker occurring with the aspects. Presently the
past tense markers occurring with the simple past tense is given in a
schematic diagram. |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chiwè
`tied’ |
| |
remote |
|
|
|
|
specified |
|
Chikè |
| simple
past |
|
|
quantum |
|
Chiwà/we |
| |
immediate |
|
|
unspecified |
Chi |
| |
|
|
stative |
|
determinative |
Chie |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
indeterminative |
|
Chiwya |
|
|
Though
the use of the past tense in Sema was presented in a formal manner, in
addition and outside it, the events that took place in the past are/can
be indicated differently depending upon the situation. For instance, if
one wants to state that he killed the bird, the verb can indicate whether
or not the bird was taken after killing it, as in : |
pano
a aw
weqhilú |
`he
killed the bird and took it’ |
| pano
aaw
weqhiwà |
`he killed the bird’ (but may or
may not have taken it). |
|
|
| The
second sentence does not specify whether or not the person concerned had
taken the bird after he killed it. But both the sentences, however, indicate
the tool used in killing the bird, by using the prefix, we. The prefix
we is used only for hitting anything by throwing a stone by hand. If some
other tool is used, it would be indicated differently, a sin : |
|
Pano aaw
hexlu |
`he
hit a bird’ (lit. he got a bird by hitting) |
|
Pano aaw
melù |
`he
got a bird by trapping’ |
|
Pano aaw
we |
`he
hit the bird (with a stone)’ |
|
|
| To
cite another example, the simple action of breaking something can be expressed
differently depending upon the manner of breaking the object, as in :
|
Break it :
(by hammer)
|
|
`hi hèpówelò |
|
(take and hit on something) |
|
`kubó
welò |
| (by
two hands against any part of the body, i.e., by
placing it on knee or elsewhere and breaking by
both hands) |
 |
hi
sicewilò |
(by
holding on hand and pressing by
the bottom of the foot) |
|
hi
nechewelò |
(by
holding with one hand and hitting
with the other hand) |
|
hi
hechewilò |
(by
holding by one hand and breaking
with the other) |
|
hi
cischewilò |
(the
rope by pulling it in opposite
direction by two hands) |
|
hi
s
thewilò |
|
|
In
any culture, if required, it would be possible to express the manner in
which an item is broken, but usually it is not expressed. But in Sema
culture, giving such an information is considered an essential feature
of the communication pattern - Such instances cannot be formalised in
a grammar as different actions show different types of semantic segmation
and these differences need not be marked formally by the tense marker.
Thus even though tense is a valid grammatical category in Sema, it is
not a very important feature. |
