<p>I know for one of my languages I want there to be a realis vs. irrealis distinction in the verb paradigm - but I'm not entirely sure how to get there.</p>
<p>In <a href="https://www.academia.edu/40755773/Routes_towards_the_irrealis" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Routes towards the irrealis</em> (Andrea Sansò, 2020)</a>, Sansò says that irrealis markers can arise from a number of auxiliary verbs, such as &quot;to go&quot; and &quot;to be&quot;.</p>
<p>(I... do not really understand his explanation for <em>why</em> these would yield an irrealis meaning - yes, he explains that e.g. &quot;to go&quot; would first yield an itive/distal meaning, and then that distal yields a optative-desiderative, but that second step feels like a <em>non sequitur</em>; why would a distal yield an optative? But, sure, I'll accept it.)</p>
<p>The problem this causes is that I was <em>already using</em> those same auxiliary verbs to derive <em>aspect</em> - e.g. &quot;to go&quot; for imperfective (which turns into the present), and &quot;to be&quot; for stative → perfect aspect.</p>
<p>Hmm... maybe it could be both at once? The construction including &quot;to go&quot; could be both imperfective (→ present) and irrealis? But then I still need a way to express the realis present. (And, you know, irrealis in all the other tenses/aspects)</p>
<p>Enter an idea from Kabardian - explicitly marking verbs realis, and assuming irrealis if not:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>After inflectional tense comes mood, which can be either the various mood suffixes or any non-finite morphemes. Moods denote affirmative declarative, negative, irrealis (including optatives and hortatives), interrogative, and imperative (for the jussive see (199)). Kabardian appears to be unique in the world in having a distinct mood mark for simple positive declaratives (in all but the present active tense), /-ś/ (perhaps underlyingly /-śa/ (225e)). Absence of this affirmative creates a neutral irrealis (220h) (Dumezil 1975: 101, §35), or a simple interrogative (220i).</p>
<p>-John Colarusso, A Grammar of Kabardian (1992), p.125, section 4.2.7.4.2</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I don't know what a realis marker could evolve from. Intuitively, probably a resultative marker or something. But again, I was <em>already using</em> a resultative marker to derive an aspect, this time perfective aspect (→ aorist past). cf. <em>The Evolution of Language: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World</em> (Bybee et al., 1994), Section 3.7.</p>
<p>I mean honestly, having some tenses be default-realis and others be default-irrealis seems kind of cool; I'm just getting confused how to pull it off without getting in my own way and interfering with the existing origins for verbal aspect, as I currently am.</p>
<p>What do?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-12-18T07:52:20.367Z
You could just use "to want" for an irrealis - it's a pretty basic concept and what you *want* to be true isn't necessarily true
No Name
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-12-18T07:54:17.823Z
There's also the fact that English uses "to be" for both the passive voice and the progressive aspect. The difference? The form of the main verb - the passive uses the past participle and the progressive uses the present participle
No Name
<grammar><diachronics><tense-aspect-mood>
Evolving mood and aspect from the same auxiliaries?
# Evolving mood and aspect from the same auxiliaries?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2024-12-17)

I know for one of my languages I want there to be a realis vs. irrealis distinction in the verb paradigm - but I'm not entirely sure how to get there.

In [*Routes towards the irrealis* (Andrea Sansò, 2020)](https://www.academia.edu/40755773/Routes_towards_the_irrealis), Sansò says that irrealis markers can arise from a number of auxiliary verbs, such as "to go" and "to be".

(I... do not really understand his explanation for *why* these would yield an irrealis meaning - yes, he explains that e.g. "to go" would first yield an itive/distal meaning, and then that distal yields a optative-desiderative, but that second step feels like a *non sequitur*; why would a distal yield an optative? But, sure, I'll accept it.)

The problem this causes is that I was *already using* those same auxiliary verbs to derive *aspect* - e.g. "to go" for imperfective (which turns into the present), and "to be" for stative → perfect aspect.

Hmm... maybe it could be both at once? The construction including "to go" could be both imperfective (→ present) and irrealis? But then I still need a way to express the realis present. (And, you know, irrealis in all the other tenses/aspects)

Enter an idea from Kabardian - explicitly marking verbs realis, and assuming irrealis if not:

> After inflectional tense comes mood, which can be either the various mood suffixes or any non-finite morphemes. Moods denote affirmative declarative, negative, irrealis (including optatives and hortatives), interrogative, and imperative (for the jussive see (199)). Kabardian appears to be unique in the world in having a distinct mood mark for simple positive declaratives (in all but the present active tense), /-ś/ (perhaps underlyingly /-śa/ (225e)). Absence of this affirmative creates a neutral irrealis (220h) (Dumezil 1975: 101, §35), or a simple interrogative (220i).
>
> -John Colarusso, A Grammar of Kabardian (1992), p.125, section 4.2.7.4.2

I don't know what a realis marker could evolve from. Intuitively, probably a resultative marker or something. But again, I was *already using* a resultative marker to derive an aspect, this time perfective aspect (→ aorist past). cf. *The Evolution of Language: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World* (Bybee et al., 1994), Section 3.7.

I mean honestly, having some tenses be default-realis and others be default-irrealis seems kind of cool; I'm just getting confused how to pull it off without getting in my own way and interfering with the existing origins for verbal aspect, as I currently am.

What do?

**Tags:** grammar, diachronics, tense-aspect-mood

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: You could just use "to want" for an irrealis - it's a pretty basic concept and what you *want* to be true isn't necessarily true  
> **username_1**: There's also the fact that English uses "to be" for both the passive voice and the progressive aspect. The difference? The form of the main verb - the passive uses the past participle and the progressive uses the present participle  

---

## 0 answers

