[102813] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Aspect, etc
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Will Martin)
Thu Dec 3 14:12:30 2015
From: Will Martin <lojmitti7wi7nuv@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 14:12:02 -0500
To: tlhIngan Hol mailing list <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
In-Reply-To: <56607724.8040501@trimboli.name>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
--===============3184911896360118186==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C1B84A1A-F5DC-4126-B787-B2CA897B06E2"
--Apple-Mail=_C1B84A1A-F5DC-4126-B787-B2CA897B06E2
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=utf-8
I=E2=80=99m trying to wrap my head around this.
The issue of time context is messy, since most forms of time stamp =
involve a duration as well as a time anchor. {wa=E2=80=99Hu=E2=80=99} is =
not a specific instant, but any of an infinite number of instants =
between the dawn with today=E2=80=99s date and the dawn with one less =
than today=E2=80=99s date, or it can refer to any duration within that =
larger duration, including the entire duration.
Even the instant specified by {DaH} is squishy, since, depending on =
context, it can mean the duration of the expression of the word (which =
is still full of an infinite number of instants), to a vague, larger =
duration moment in time that includes the instants that involve the =
expression of the word.
It=E2=80=99s messy. It=E2=80=99s functional, but messy.
I have always assumed that the perfective supplements the temporal =
information given by the explicit or implied time stamp, and that =
expressions that are timeless are exceptional. They exist, but they are =
relatively rare. Timelessness with the perfective seems even more =
exceptional.
It seems like if you want to say that Kruge =E2=80=9CDOESN=E2=80=99T SAY =
WHEN THIS HAPPENS=E2=80=9D, then there=E2=80=99s no reason to exclude =
the future. He could just as easily mean, =E2=80=9CThus you will =
complete seeing it twenty years from now.=E2=80=9D If there=E2=80=99s no =
time reference, then there=E2=80=99s no time reference. An absence of =
time reference does not imply past tense, which is what you are =
suggesting.
My suggestion is simpler. The implied context is present tense, and =
Kruge is concluding that at the present moment, Valkris has completed =
seeing the Genesis Project. That completion of the action is significant =
in the present tense. It is now too late for him to warn her to not see =
it.
Valkris tells him that he will find it useful to the mission. He =
concludes from her statement that she knows what it is because she has =
seen it. She acknowledges that she=E2=80=99s seen it. He comments that =
this is unfortunate (for her). She accepts his judgement, letting him =
know that she understands.
She doesn=E2=80=99t say, {jIyajpu=E2=80=99}. Is that to suggest that her =
understanding is incomplete, or habitual, or general, and not referring =
to any specific thing that he has said? No. He has said something, and =
she has understood what he said.
I honestly believe that canon fails to conform to the clear and explicit =
statement in TKD that the absence of a Type 7 verb suffix implies that =
there is no continuation or completion of the action. In practice, these =
suffixes function more like optional helper words in English. You =
include them when their added meaning are noteworthy, and you omit them =
when they are not.
It=E2=80=99s noteworthy that the completion of the action of seeing the =
Genesis Project is complete. It=E2=80=99s not noteworthy that the action =
of understanding what Kruge just said is complete. It actually IS =
complete, but that=E2=80=99s not as important as expressing that she =
understood what he said.
It=E2=80=99s messy. We can talk about how it SHOULD be used, but that =
won=E2=80=99t dictate how it actually is used.
It would be great to give Okrand a heads up that this discussion exists =
and that he should weigh in on it. I don=E2=80=99t expect that to =
happen, but it sure would be good if it could. This is not a new topic, =
and it=E2=80=99s never been cleanly resolved, though it has been thought =
through quite thoroughly by several people who can=E2=80=99t really =
declare how things need to be, while it has not been commented on =
meaningfully by the guy with absolute authority over how it has to be.
pItlh
lojmIt tI'wI'nuv
> On Dec 3, 2015, at 12:08 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
>=20
> On 12/3/2015 11:59 AM, Will Martin wrote:
>> 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.
>=20
> No. Kruge never gives a time context for his statement. He doesn't say =
{DaH Daleghpu'} or {wa'Hu' Daleghpu'} or anything like that. He says =
{vaj Daleghpu'}. By a strictly perfective interpretation, which is what =
TKD invites us to envision, this means Valkris sees and completes seeing =
it, AND HE DOESN'T SAY WHEN THIS HAPPENS. Of course, they both =
understand that the seeing happened in the past, but this is not =
expressed in the sentence.
>=20
> You're adding a "context of 'now'" where one doesn't exist.
>=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=_C1B84A1A-F5DC-4126-B787-B2CA897B06E2
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"">I=E2=80=99m trying to wrap my head around =
this.</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">The =
issue of time context is messy, since most forms of time stamp involve a =
duration as well as a time anchor. {wa=E2=80=99Hu=E2=80=99} is not a =
specific instant, but any of an infinite number of instants between the =
dawn with today=E2=80=99s date and the dawn with one less than today=E2=80=
=99s date, or it can refer to any duration within that larger duration, =
including the entire duration.</div><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">Even the instant specified by {DaH} is =
squishy, since, depending on context, it can mean the duration of the =
expression of the word (which is still full of an infinite number of =
instants), to a vague, larger duration moment in time that includes the =
instants that involve the expression of the word.</div><div class=3D""><br=
class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">It=E2=80=99s messy. It=E2=80=99s =
functional, but messy.</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div =
class=3D"">I have always assumed that the perfective supplements the =
temporal information given by the explicit or implied time stamp, and =
that expressions that are timeless are exceptional. They exist, but they =
are relatively rare. Timelessness with the perfective seems even more =
exceptional.</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">It =
seems like if you want to say that Kruge =E2=80=9CDOESN=E2=80=99T SAY =
WHEN THIS HAPPENS=E2=80=9D, then there=E2=80=99s no reason to exclude =
the future. He could just as easily mean, =E2=80=9CThus you will =
complete seeing it twenty years from now.=E2=80=9D If there=E2=80=99s no =
time reference, then there=E2=80=99s no time reference. An absence of =
time reference does not imply past tense, which is what you are =
suggesting.</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">My =
suggestion is simpler. The implied context is present tense, and Kruge =
is concluding that at the present moment, Valkris has completed seeing =
the Genesis Project. That completion of the action is significant in the =
present tense. It is now too late for him to warn her to not see =
it.</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">Valkris =
tells him that he will find it useful to the mission. He concludes from =
her statement that she knows what it is because she has seen it. She =
acknowledges that she=E2=80=99s seen it. He comments that this is =
unfortunate (for her). She accepts his judgement, letting him know that =
she understands.</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div =
class=3D"">She doesn=E2=80=99t say, {jIyajpu=E2=80=99}. Is that to =
suggest that her understanding is incomplete, or habitual, or general, =
and not referring to any specific thing that he has said? No. He has =
said something, and she has understood what he said.</div><div =
class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">I honestly believe that =
canon fails to conform to the clear and explicit statement in TKD that =
the absence of a Type 7 verb suffix implies that there is no =
continuation or completion of the action. In practice, these suffixes =
function more like optional helper words in English. You include them =
when their added meaning are noteworthy, and you omit them when they are =
not.</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">It=E2=80=99=
s noteworthy that the completion of the action of seeing the Genesis =
Project is complete. It=E2=80=99s not noteworthy that the action of =
understanding what Kruge just said is complete. It actually IS complete, =
but that=E2=80=99s not as important as expressing that she understood =
what he said.</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div =
class=3D"">It=E2=80=99s messy. We can talk about how it SHOULD be used, =
but that won=E2=80=99t dictate how it actually is used.</div><div =
class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">It would be great to =
give Okrand a heads up that this discussion exists and that he should =
weigh in on it. I don=E2=80=99t expect that to happen, but it sure would =
be good if it could. This is not a new topic, and it=E2=80=99s never =
been cleanly resolved, though it has been thought through quite =
thoroughly by several people who can=E2=80=99t really declare how things =
need to be, while it has not been commented on meaningfully by the guy =
with absolute authority over how it has to be.</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 12:08 PM, 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 11:59 =
AM, Will Martin wrote:<br class=3D""><blockquote type=3D"cite" =
class=3D"">That said, I think that your accurate and thorough =
understanding of the<br class=3D"">difference between perfective and =
perfect is probably clearer than the<br class=3D"">actual use of =
{-pu=E2=80=99} and {-ta=E2=80=99} in canon or in general usage. The<br =
class=3D"">example that you give, {vaj Daleghpu=E2=80=99}, from ST3 does =
not imply that at<br class=3D"">the time context of the statement the =
completion of the action occurs.<br class=3D"">Kruge is recognizing that =
in the context of =E2=80=9Cnow=E2=80=9D, the action of<br =
class=3D"">Valkris=E2=80=99s seeing the Genesis Project has already been =
completed.<br class=3D""></blockquote><br class=3D"">No. Kruge never =
gives a time context for his statement. He doesn't say {DaH Daleghpu'} =
or {wa'Hu' Daleghpu'} or anything like that. He says {vaj Daleghpu'}. By =
a strictly perfective interpretation, which is what TKD invites us to =
envision, this means Valkris sees and completes seeing it, AND HE =
DOESN'T SAY WHEN THIS HAPPENS. Of course, they both understand that the =
seeing happened in the past, but this is not expressed in the =
sentence.<br class=3D""><br class=3D"">You're adding a "context of =
'now'" where one doesn't exist.<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=_C1B84A1A-F5DC-4126-B787-B2CA897B06E2--
--===============3184911896360118186==
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
--===============3184911896360118186==--
