[102804] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Aspect, etc
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Will Martin)
Thu Dec 3 11:59:38 2015
From: Will Martin <lojmitti7wi7nuv@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 11:59:21 -0500
To: tlhIngan Hol mailing list <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
In-Reply-To: <56606C1F.5070709@trimboli.name>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
--===============0104957628312174251==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_412E9C4D-4328-44B0-8138-4F51864254F6"
--Apple-Mail=_412E9C4D-4328-44B0-8138-4F51864254F6
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=utf-8
Given that in years past, I had a knee-jerk negative reaction to your =
posts, and given that email does not convey emotion (or lack of emotion) =
effectively, I want to start by making it very clear that I=E2=80=99m =
older now and no longer feel anything negative about you or your =
opinions. I respect you. You=E2=80=99ve clearly put a lot more work into =
understanding the language in recent years than I have. Your opinion =
carries weight with me, and I=E2=80=99ve often found myself cheering you =
on when you weigh in on grammatical points on this list.
That said, I think that your accurate and thorough understanding of the =
difference between perfective and perfect is probably clearer than the =
actual use of {-pu=E2=80=99} and {-ta=E2=80=99} in canon or in general =
usage. The example that you give, {vaj Daleghpu=E2=80=99}, from ST3 does =
not imply that at the time context of the statement the completion of =
the action occurs. Kruge is recognizing that in the context of =
=E2=80=9Cnow=E2=80=9D, the action of Valkris=E2=80=99s seeing the =
Genesis Project has already been completed. Nobody is talking about any =
precise moment when that completion occurred, except to point from now =
into the vague past. Maybe she saw it half an hour ago. Maybe she saw it =
last year.
This is exactly what I=E2=80=99m suggesting.
I think that you would be right, if Klingon worked the way it says it is =
supposed to work, but in reality, I think it=E2=80=99s sloppier than =
that. I think that I would enjoy the higher level of temporal precision =
of speaking a language that behaves as you=E2=80=99d like Klingon to =
behave. I like anything that cleans up ambiguity and makes statements =
clearer.
But I don=E2=80=99t think Okrand or Paramount or even the people on this =
list actually speak a language that does that. I have been personally =
broken-hearted when I formed any of several theories about how Klingon =
is supposed to work, only to have Okrand screw it up by not being as =
consistent as I=E2=80=99d prefer that he was, but all my wishes were for =
naught. Okrand likes the idea of Klingon acting like a =E2=80=9Cnatural=E2=
=80=9D language, with all the implied imperfections.
I think that the perfective suffixes in Klingon have a problem in that =
they are NOT consistent about whether the completion of the action of =
the verb occurs DURING the period of time indicated by the time stamp or =
time context, or if that completion occurred BEFORE that time stamp or =
time context. I think it=E2=80=99s muddy.
Believe it or not, I will be as happy as you to discover otherwise. =
Greater precision is prettier. It gives the language an aesthetic =
beauty. Meanwhile, the actual language has rust, dust, and grit, and I =
think that {-pu=E2=80=99} and {-ta=E2=80=99} are among the dustier, =
grittier details of the language.
Yes, I have been confusing perfect and perfective. Meanwhile, I honestly =
think the language does the same.
I do appreciate the education you=E2=80=99ve offered to clarify the =
difference between perfect and perfective. You=E2=80=99ve improved my =
understanding of the concepts, though I=E2=80=99m uncertain that they =
apply to this language.
pItlh
lojmIt tI'wI'nuv
> On Dec 3, 2015, at 11:21 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
>=20
> On 12/3/2015 10:22 AM, Will Martin wrote:
>> 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=E2=80=99t include =
the moment of
>> death of the victim.
>=20
> This is usually true in modern colloquial English, but it's not always =
true. Consider Polonius in Hamlet who shouts "Oh, I am slain" BEFORE he =
dies.
>=20
>> If you say {wa=E2=80=99Hu=E2=80=99 targh vIHoH}, then I assume the =
targh died yesterday.
>> Maybe I=E2=80=99d figure out the targh didn=E2=80=99t die yesterday =
if you said, {wa=E2=80=99Hu
>> targh vIHoHchoH} or {wa=E2=80=99Hu=E2=80=99 targh vIHoHtaH}, but if =
you don=E2=80=99t 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.
>=20
> You could also be saying you went targ-hunting yesterday, or that =
yesterday you were a targ-killer but today you're not.
>=20
> But because TKD says "The absence of a Type 7 suffix usually means =
that the action is not completed and is not continuous," we must =
generally assume that you did NOT complete killing the targ. You did not =
add {-pu'}, so you did not complete the action.
>=20
> I agree that {HoH} is a poor choice for an example, because in English =
it carries the notion of completion with it. This may or may not be true =
in Klingon. Whether or not it is, if you're describing a completed =
action, you must use a perfective suffix.
>=20
>> 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=E2=80=99Hu=E2=
=80=99} is,
>> alone, enough to establish the English equivalent of the past tense.
>> Adding the {-pu=E2=80=99} 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=E2=80=99t have bothered to note the perfective.
>=20
> That's not the difference between tense and perfective.
>=20
> Tense tells WHEN an action took place=E2=80=94was it in the present, =
the past, or the future?
>=20
> Perfective tells HOW an action took place in time=E2=80=94it viewed as =
a simple whole without internal temporal composition.
>=20
> A perfect verb (not perfective) tells that an action took place in the =
past and is now completed. What you're describing above is a perfect. =
It's a combination of tense and aspect.
>=20
> Despite what it says in TKD, Klingon doesn't have a pure perfective =
aspect. The suffixes {-pu'} and {-ta'} are used for both perfective =
aspect ({loSmaH ben jIboghpu'} or {QI'tomerDaq Heghpu' Hoch} and the =
perfect (there are examples, although I can't find any at the moment). =
In most canonical instances of {-pu'} or {-ta'} one cannot prove whether =
they are perfective or perfect.
>=20
> What tends to trip up most English-speaking Klingonists is that =
English does not have separate tense and aspect markers, so it's =
difficult to understand the Klingon based on the English translation. =
For instance:
>=20
> Daleghpu'
> you have seen it
>=20
> TKD uses a convention of translating {-pu'} and {-ta'} with the =
present perfect. "It is often translated by the English present perfect =
/(have done something)./" This is only a convention, not equivalent =
grammar, and it obscures the idea of perfective aspect, in which the =
action is viewed as an indivisible whole. In the example above, the =
present perfect interpretation is given, in which prior to now you saw =
something and completed seeing it. A purely perfective translation is =
difficult to give, because English doesn't work that way.
>=20
> Daleghpu'
> you see/saw/will see something and complete/completed/will complete
> seeing it
>=20
> There's no way, based on the example alone, even with the context of =
Kruge saying it to Valkris about the Genesis report, to say whether =
Kruge is using perfective aspect or a perfect construction. This is the =
case with nearly all canonical examples.
>=20
> Given the relatively firm way TKD tells us that Klingon does not =
express tenses in its verbs, I prefer to interpret all instances of =
{-pu'} or {-ta'} as true perfective aspect unless the interpretation =
requires otherwise.
>=20
>=20
> Perfective aspect
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfective_aspect>
>=20
> Perfect (grammar)
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_(grammar)>
>=20
> --=20
> SuStel
> http://trimboli.name
>=20
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
--Apple-Mail=_412E9C4D-4328-44B0-8138-4F51864254F6
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
charset=utf-8
<html><head><meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html =
charset=3Dutf-8"></head><body style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; =
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" =
class=3D""><div class=3D"">Given that in years past, I had a knee-jerk =
negative reaction to your posts, and given that email does not convey =
emotion (or lack of emotion) effectively, I want to start by making it =
very clear that I=E2=80=99m older now and no longer feel anything =
negative about you or your opinions. I respect you. You=E2=80=99ve =
clearly put a lot more work into understanding the language in recent =
years than I have. Your opinion carries weight with me, and I=E2=80=99ve =
often found myself cheering you on when you weigh in on grammatical =
points on this list.</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div =
class=3D"">That said, I think that your accurate and thorough =
understanding of the difference between perfective and perfect is =
probably clearer than the actual use of {-pu=E2=80=99} and {-ta=E2=80=99} =
in canon or in general usage. The example that you give, {vaj =
Daleghpu=E2=80=99}, from ST3 does not imply that at the time context of =
the statement the completion of the action occurs. Kruge is recognizing =
that in the context of =E2=80=9Cnow=E2=80=9D, the action of Valkris=E2=80=99=
s seeing the Genesis Project has already been completed. Nobody is =
talking about any precise moment when that completion occurred, except =
to point from now into the vague past. Maybe she saw it half an hour =
ago. Maybe she saw it last year.</div><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">This is exactly what I=E2=80=99m =
suggesting.</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">I =
think that you would be right, if Klingon worked the way it says it is =
supposed to work, but in reality, I think it=E2=80=99s sloppier than =
that. I think that I would enjoy the higher level of temporal precision =
of speaking a language that behaves as you=E2=80=99d like Klingon to =
behave. I like anything that cleans up ambiguity and makes statements =
clearer.</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">But I =
don=E2=80=99t think Okrand or Paramount or even the people on this list =
actually speak a language that does that. I have been personally =
broken-hearted when I formed any of several theories about how Klingon =
is supposed to work, only to have Okrand screw it up by not being as =
consistent as I=E2=80=99d prefer that he was, but all my wishes were for =
naught. Okrand likes the idea of Klingon acting like a =E2=80=9Cnatural=E2=
=80=9D language, with all the implied imperfections.</div><div =
class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">I think that the =
perfective suffixes in Klingon have a problem in that they are NOT =
consistent about whether the completion of the action of the verb occurs =
DURING the period of time indicated by the time stamp or time context, =
or if that completion occurred BEFORE that time stamp or time context. I =
think it=E2=80=99s muddy.</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div =
class=3D"">Believe it or not, I will be as happy as you to discover =
otherwise. Greater precision is prettier. It gives the language an =
aesthetic beauty. Meanwhile, the actual language has rust, dust, and =
grit, and I think that {-pu=E2=80=99} and {-ta=E2=80=99} are among the =
dustier, grittier details of the language.</div><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">Yes, I have been confusing perfect and =
perfective. Meanwhile, I honestly think the language does the =
same.</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">I do =
appreciate the education you=E2=80=99ve offered to clarify the =
difference between perfect and perfective. You=E2=80=99ve improved my =
understanding of the concepts, though I=E2=80=99m uncertain that they =
apply to this language.</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 11:21 AM, SuStel <<a =
href=3D"mailto:sustel@trimboli.name" =
class=3D"">sustel@trimboli.name</a>> wrote:</div><br =
class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=3D"">On 12/3/2015 10:22 =
AM, Will Martin wrote:<br class=3D""><blockquote type=3D"cite" =
class=3D"">I honestly believe that {HoH} is a bad verb to use as a =
clarifying<br class=3D"">example of the use of the perfective. The =
problem is that the action of<br class=3D"">the verb implies a result. =
The action of the verb is not a process so<br class=3D"">much as it is =
the production of a result. I can attack you, or even give<br =
class=3D"">you a mortal wound and you can remain alive, but if you are =
still alive,<br class=3D"">then unless I go out of the way to note the =
explicit beginning or<br class=3D"">continuation of the action with =
{-choH} or {-taH}, I doubt that anyone<br class=3D"">would use {HoH} to =
describe an action that doesn=E2=80=99t include the moment of<br =
class=3D"">death of the victim.<br class=3D""></blockquote><br =
class=3D"">This is usually true in modern colloquial English, but it's =
not always true. Consider Polonius in Hamlet who shouts "Oh, I am slain" =
BEFORE he dies.<br class=3D""><br class=3D""><blockquote type=3D"cite" =
class=3D"">If you say {wa=E2=80=99Hu=E2=80=99 targh vIHoH}, then I =
assume the targh died yesterday.<br class=3D"">Maybe I=E2=80=99d figure =
out the targh didn=E2=80=99t die yesterday if you said, {wa=E2=80=99Hu<br =
class=3D"">targh vIHoHchoH} or {wa=E2=80=99Hu=E2=80=99 targh vIHoHtaH}, =
but if you don=E2=80=99t note that<br class=3D"">you simply BEGAN to =
kill or that you CONTINUED to kill, I would quite<br class=3D"">naturally =
assume the death of the targh. Otherwise, you are making an<br =
class=3D"">empty, exaggerated claim.<br class=3D""></blockquote><br =
class=3D"">You could also be saying you went targ-hunting yesterday, or =
that yesterday you were a targ-killer but today you're not.<br =
class=3D""><br class=3D"">But because TKD says "The absence of a Type 7 =
suffix usually means that the action is not completed and is not =
continuous," we must generally assume that you did NOT complete killing =
the targ. You did not add {-pu'}, so you did not complete the action.<br =
class=3D""><br class=3D"">I agree that {HoH} is a poor choice for an =
example, because in English it carries the notion of completion with it. =
This may or may not be true in Klingon. Whether or not it is, if you're =
describing a completed action, you must use a perfective suffix.<br =
class=3D""><br class=3D""><blockquote type=3D"cite" class=3D"">I work =
mostly from my understanding of the difference, in English,<br =
class=3D"">between tense and the perfective. Yesterday, I killed a =
targh.<br class=3D"">Yesterday, I had killed a targh. Using the time =
stamp {wa=E2=80=99Hu=E2=80=99} is,<br class=3D"">alone, enough to =
establish the English equivalent of the past tense.<br class=3D"">Adding =
the {-pu=E2=80=99} makes it past perfect, which does not imply the =
death<br class=3D"">occurred yesterday. It implies that the death =
occurred yesterday or<br class=3D"">before, and most likely before, =
since if it happened yesterday, I<br class=3D"">probably wouldn=E2=80=99t =
have bothered to note the perfective.<br class=3D""></blockquote><br =
class=3D"">That's not the difference between tense and perfective.<br =
class=3D""><br class=3D"">Tense tells WHEN an action took place=E2=80=94wa=
s it in the present, the past, or the future?<br class=3D""><br =
class=3D"">Perfective tells HOW an action took place in time=E2=80=94it =
viewed as a simple whole without internal temporal composition.<br =
class=3D""><br class=3D"">A perfect verb (not perfective) tells that an =
action took place in the past and is now completed. What you're =
describing above is a perfect. It's a combination of tense and =
aspect.<br class=3D""><br class=3D"">Despite what it says in TKD, =
Klingon doesn't have a pure perfective aspect. The suffixes {-pu'} and =
{-ta'} are used for both perfective aspect ({loSmaH ben jIboghpu'} or =
{QI'tomerDaq Heghpu' Hoch} and the perfect (there are examples, although =
I can't find any at the moment). In most canonical instances of {-pu'} =
or {-ta'} one cannot prove whether they are perfective or perfect.<br =
class=3D""><br class=3D"">What tends to trip up most English-speaking =
Klingonists is that English does not have separate tense and aspect =
markers, so it's difficult to understand the Klingon based on the =
English translation. For instance:<br class=3D""><br class=3D""> =
Daleghpu'<br class=3D""> you have seen it<br =
class=3D""><br class=3D"">TKD uses a convention of translating {-pu'} =
and {-ta'} with the present perfect. "It is often translated by the =
English present perfect /(have done something)./" This is only a =
convention, not equivalent grammar, and it obscures the idea of =
perfective aspect, in which the action is viewed as an indivisible =
whole. In the example above, the present perfect interpretation is =
given, in which prior to now you saw something and completed seeing it. =
A purely perfective translation is difficult to give, because English =
doesn't work that way.<br class=3D""><br class=3D""> =
Daleghpu'<br class=3D""> you see/saw/will see =
something and complete/completed/will complete<br class=3D""> =
seeing it<br class=3D""><br class=3D"">There's no way, based =
on the example alone, even with the context of Kruge saying it to =
Valkris about the Genesis report, to say whether Kruge is using =
perfective aspect or a perfect construction. This is the case with =
nearly all canonical examples.<br class=3D""><br class=3D"">Given the =
relatively firm way TKD tells us that Klingon does not express tenses in =
its verbs, I prefer to interpret all instances of {-pu'} or {-ta'} as =
true perfective aspect unless the interpretation requires otherwise.<br =
class=3D""><br class=3D""><br class=3D"">Perfective aspect<br =
class=3D""><<a href=3D"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfective_aspect"=
class=3D"">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfective_aspect</a>><br =
class=3D""><br class=3D"">Perfect (grammar)<br class=3D""><<a =
href=3D"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_(grammar)" =
class=3D"">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_(grammar)</a>><br =
class=3D""><br class=3D"">-- <br class=3D"">SuStel<br class=3D""><a =
href=3D"http://trimboli.name" class=3D"">http://trimboli.name</a><br =
class=3D""><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=_412E9C4D-4328-44B0-8138-4F51864254F6--
--===============0104957628312174251==
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
--===============0104957628312174251==--
