[102795] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Aspect, etc
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Will Martin)
Thu Dec 3 10:22:22 2015
From: Will Martin <lojmitti7wi7nuv@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 10:22:05 -0500
To: "tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org"
<tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org>
In-Reply-To: <566005F7.3000203@gmx.de>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
--===============9039426676446225761==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_5E8063E0-0F4F-4EE1-8D68-4F688DF1FF69"
--Apple-Mail=_5E8063E0-0F4F-4EE1-8D68-4F688DF1FF69
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=windows-1252
I honestly believe that {HoH} is a bad verb to use as a clarifying =
example of the use of the perfective. The problem is that the action of =
the verb implies a result. The action of the verb is not a process so =
much as it is the production of a result. I can attack you, or even give =
you a mortal wound and you can remain alive, but if you are still alive, =
then unless I go out of the way to note the explicit beginning or =
continuation of the action with {-choH} or {-taH}, I doubt that anyone =
would use {HoH} to describe an action that doesn=92t include the moment =
of death of the victim.
If you say {wa=92Hu=92 targh vIHoH}, then I assume the targh died =
yesterday. Maybe I=92d figure out the targh didn=92t die yesterday if =
you said, {wa=92Hu targh vIHoHchoH} or {wa=92Hu=92 targh vIHoHtaH}, but =
if you don=92t note that you simply BEGAN to kill or that you CONTINUED =
to kill, I would quite naturally assume the death of the targh. =
Otherwise, you are making an empty, exaggerated claim.
{wa=92Hu=92 targh vIHoHpu=92} to my ear is a little indistinct as to =
whether the targh died yesterday, or some time before yesterday. I=92m =
not sure that it has been established whether the perfective implies the =
moment of completion, or merely the state of being complete. Are we =
saying that the action completes itself yesterday, or are we saying that =
yesterday, the action was complete.
In other words, does it mean that the action was complete yesterday, or =
completed yesterday. These are not the same claim, and I=92m not sure =
that the difference has ever been established in terms of {-pu=92}. =
We=92ve argued about this before. Perhaps I=92m wrong. It happens a lot. =
Often.
I work mostly from my understanding of the difference, in English, =
between tense and the perfective. Yesterday, I killed a targh. =
Yesterday, I had killed a targh. Using the time stamp {wa=92Hu=92} is, =
alone, enough to establish the English equivalent of the past tense. =
Adding the {-pu=92} makes it past perfect, which does not imply the =
death occurred yesterday. It implies that the death occurred yesterday =
or before, and most likely before, since if it happened yesterday, I =
probably wouldn=92t have bothered to note the perfective.
What I=92m really saying here is that you would do better to use a verb =
like {legh} or {yIt} that refers to an activity, rather than {HoH} that =
so strongly suggests a result.
pItlh
lojmIt tI'wI'nuv
> On Dec 3, 2015, at 4:05 AM, Lieven <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
>=20
> Am 02.12.2015 um 13:48 schrieb Andr=E9 M=FCller:
>=20
>> But the difference between {'opHu' targh vIHoHpu'} and {'opHu' targh
>> vIHoH} is minute if at all existing.
>=20
> Yes, indeed, due to the indefinite time.
>=20
> But if you have a defined time stamp, like "yesterday" or "last =
friday", then the difference is clearer:
>=20
>=20
> {wa'Hu' targh vIHoH}
> "Yesterday, it was the day on which I was killing the targ"
> (and maybe it died the day after?)
>=20
> {wa'Hu' targh vIHoHpu'}
> "On yesterday, I killed the targh yesterday the killing of the targ =
was finished yesterday."
> (and it's definitely dead)
>=20
>=20
> --=20
> Lieven L. Litaer
> aka Quvar valer 'utlh
> Grammarian of the KLI
> http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher
> http://www.klingonwiki.net
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
--Apple-Mail=_5E8063E0-0F4F-4EE1-8D68-4F688DF1FF69
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
charset=windows-1252
<html><head><meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html =
charset=3Dwindows-1252"></head><body style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; =
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" =
class=3D""><div class=3D"">I honestly believe that {HoH} is a bad verb =
to use as a clarifying example of the use of the perfective. The problem =
is that the action of the verb implies a result. The action of the verb =
is not a process so much as it is the production of a result. I can =
attack you, or even give you a mortal wound and you can remain alive, =
but if you are still alive, then unless I go out of the way to note the =
explicit beginning or continuation of the action with {-choH} or {-taH}, =
I doubt that anyone would use {HoH} to describe an action that doesn=92t =
include the moment of death of the victim.</div><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">If you say {wa=92Hu=92 targh vIHoH}, =
then I assume the targh died yesterday. Maybe I=92d figure out the targh =
didn=92t die yesterday if you said, {wa=92Hu targh vIHoHchoH} or {wa=92Hu=92=
targh vIHoHtaH}, but if you don=92t note that you simply BEGAN to kill =
or that you CONTINUED to kill, I would quite naturally assume the death =
of the targh. Otherwise, you are making an empty, exaggerated =
claim.</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">{wa=92Hu=92=
targh vIHoHpu=92} to my ear is a little indistinct as to whether the =
targh died yesterday, or some time before yesterday. I=92m not sure that =
it has been established whether the perfective implies the moment of =
completion, or merely the state of being complete. Are we saying that =
the action completes itself yesterday, or are we saying that yesterday, =
the action was complete.</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div =
class=3D"">In other words, does it mean that the action was complete =
yesterday, or completed yesterday. These are not the same claim, and I=92m=
not sure that the difference has ever been established in terms of =
{-pu=92}. We=92ve argued about this before. Perhaps I=92m wrong. It =
happens a lot. Often.</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div =
class=3D"">I work mostly from my understanding of the difference, in =
English, between tense and the perfective. Yesterday, I killed a targh. =
Yesterday, I had killed a targh. Using the time stamp {wa=92Hu=92} is, =
alone, enough to establish the English equivalent of the past tense. =
Adding the {-pu=92} makes it past perfect, which does not imply the =
death occurred yesterday. It implies that the death occurred yesterday =
or before, and most likely before, since if it happened yesterday, I =
probably wouldn=92t have bothered to note the perfective.</div><div =
class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">What I=92m really saying =
here is that you would do better to use a verb like {legh} or {yIt} that =
refers to an activity, rather than {HoH} that so strongly suggests a =
result.</div><br class=3D""><div class=3D"">
<span class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"border-collapse: separate; =
color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; =
font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; =
line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: =
0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: =
0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; =
-webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; =
-webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: =
auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; "><div class=3D"">pItlh</div><div =
class=3D"">lojmIt tI'wI'nuv</div><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div></span><br class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline">
</div>
<br class=3D""><div><blockquote type=3D"cite" class=3D""><div =
class=3D"">On Dec 3, 2015, at 4:05 AM, Lieven <<a =
href=3D"mailto:levinius@gmx.de" class=3D"">levinius@gmx.de</a>> =
wrote:</div><br class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=3D"">Am =
02.12.2015 um 13:48 schrieb Andr=E9 M=FCller:<br class=3D""><br =
class=3D""><blockquote type=3D"cite" class=3D"">But the difference =
between {'opHu' targh vIHoHpu'} and {'opHu' targh<br class=3D"">vIHoH} =
is minute if at all existing.<br class=3D""></blockquote><br =
class=3D"">Yes, indeed, due to the indefinite time.<br class=3D""><br =
class=3D"">But if you have a defined time stamp, like "yesterday" or =
"last friday", then the difference is clearer:<br class=3D""><br =
class=3D""><br class=3D"">{wa'Hu' targh vIHoH}<br class=3D"">"Yesterday, =
it was the day on which I was killing the targ"<br class=3D"">(and maybe =
it died the day after?)<br class=3D""><br class=3D"">{wa'Hu' targh =
vIHoHpu'}<br class=3D"">"On yesterday, I killed the targh yesterday the =
killing of the targ was finished yesterday."<br class=3D"">(and it's =
definitely dead)<br class=3D""><br class=3D""><br class=3D"">-- <br =
class=3D"">Lieven L. Litaer<br class=3D"">aka Quvar valer 'utlh<br =
class=3D"">Grammarian of the KLI<br class=3D""><a =
href=3D"http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher" =
class=3D"">http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher</a><br =
class=3D"">http://www.klingonwiki.net<br class=3D""><br =
class=3D"">_______________________________________________<br =
class=3D"">Tlhingan-hol mailing list<br class=3D"">Tlhingan-hol@kli.org<br=
class=3D"">http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol<br =
class=3D""></div></blockquote></div><br class=3D""></body></html>=
--Apple-Mail=_5E8063E0-0F4F-4EE1-8D68-4F688DF1FF69--
--===============9039426676446225761==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
--===============9039426676446225761==--
