[102822] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Aspect, etc
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Will Martin)
Thu Dec 3 16:55:43 2015
From: Will Martin <lojmitti7wi7nuv@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 16:55:27 -0500
To: tlhIngan Hol mailing list <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
In-Reply-To: <566099E0.2000809@trimboli.name>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
--===============7921964865024844969==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_B1720CD1-A403-46AC-A9EF-3F077589F737"
--Apple-Mail=_B1720CD1-A403-46AC-A9EF-3F077589F737
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=utf-8
I=E2=80=99m really trying to grok your version of how the perfective =
works in Klingon. It=E2=80=99s not easy. Maybe you are 100% correct =
here. I=E2=80=99m trying not to perpetuate the argument. That would be =
far easier. All I=E2=80=99d have to do is not listen to you and plow on, =
as we often do here.
So, trying to explain how I understand this, I=E2=80=99ve seen a verb =
without a Type 7 suffix as if it were a dot on the time line. The action =
of the verb happens. That=E2=80=99s the dot. Maybe it also happened at =
some points before and after the dot. We don=E2=80=99t care. We=E2=80=99re=
just noting that at least a dot of activity happens within the time =
setting of the statement. {wa=E2=80=99Hu=E2=80=99 jIyIt.} I walked =
yesterday. I probably didn=E2=80=99t walk all day long. I probably took =
more than one step at a walking pace. Somewhere between these extremes, =
walking happened, and I was the perpetrator.
A strict interpretation of =E2=80=9CIf there=E2=80=99s no Type 7 suffix, =
then=E2=80=A6=E2=80=9D would conclude that there can=E2=80=99t be any =
other activity beyond the dot. It=E2=80=99s a dot, not a line segment, =
because the whole point of Type 7 is to describe the line segment. =
Actions typically do not happen without starts, continuations and =
endings. The question is, what is it about the action we want to comment =
on in terms of start, continuation, and stop? If those aspects of the =
action are not important to our statements, then we don=E2=80=99t use =
Type 7 suffixes. It doesn=E2=80=99t mean the action is not a time line =
segment. We simply don=E2=80=99t care enough to note what KIND of line =
segment the action is on the time line.
Add {-taH}, and the action becomes a line with a vague start and a vague =
end. It goes in both directions farther than we are looking. The focus =
is on it being a line segment with no noteworthy start or stop within =
the time context of the statement. {wa=E2=80=99Hu=E2=80=99 jIyIttaH.} I =
walked all day yesterday.
Add {-choH} and it starts at a point and continues off into the future =
farther than we are looking. We don=E2=80=99t care how far it goes. =
We=E2=80=99re noting that the dot is the starting point. It=E2=80=99s a =
line segment with a known beginning and an ending or absence of ending =
that we don=E2=80=99t care about when we make the statement. {wa=E2=80=99H=
u=E2=80=99 jIyItchoH.} I started walking yesterday.=20
Okay. I get it.
The perfective refers to the endpoint of the action in the same way that =
{-choH} points to the beginning of the action. {wa=E2=80=99Hu=E2=80=99 =
jIyItpu=E2=80=99}. Yesterday, I stopped walking.
While this makes sense to me, if that=E2=80=99s how it works, Okrand did =
a piss poor job of explaining it in TKD. Nowhere do we get a translation =
that fits this model of what the perfective means. {vaj Daleghpu=E2=80=99}=
is not translated =E2=80=9CThus you stopped seeing it.=E2=80=9D
If {-pu=E2=80=99} is the flip side of {-choH}, indicating that =
completion (and cessation) of the action occurs in the time context of =
the sentence, then that should be a valid translation. Instead, we get, =
=E2=80=9CThen you=E2=80=99ve seen it,=E2=80=9D which falls back to my =
sense that the completion occurs in the time context of the sentence OR =
BEFORE.
I believe the difference between {-choH} as a beginning and {-pu=E2=80=99}=
as an ending is that {-choH} marks the time that the action begins, =
while {-pu=E2=80=99} merely indicates that completion has occurred. It =
doesn=E2=80=99t peg the timing of the completion the same way that =
{-choH} pegs the beginning.
You think that it DOES peg the timing of the completion the same way =
that {-choH} pegs the beginning of the action, right? Am I understanding =
you correctly?
And if I am understanding you correctly, then why isn=E2=80=99t =E2=80=9CT=
hen you stopped seeing it=E2=80=9D a valid translation of {vaj =
Daleghpu=E2=80=99}? Or is it a valid translation? And if it is, why =
haven=E2=80=99t there been any examples of it being done this way?
I know this sounds like I=E2=80=99m in your face, challenging you. =
That=E2=80=99s honestly not my intent. I=E2=80=99m not sure how to word =
it better. I=E2=80=99ve always had the sense that {-choH} is of a =
fundamentally different character than {-pu=E2=80=99}, that {-choH} is =
the dot at the beginning of a vector, while {-pu=E2=80=99} is more like =
a shape than a point. Vague start, definite stop, the combined shape =
together, not a focus on the point, alone.
As I look at it in my mind, your model (if I=E2=80=99m understanding it) =
is cleaner. My model is probably contaminated by having Okrand tell me =
that {-pu=E2=80=99} was originally intended to be past tense, and one of =
the famous botched lines made him change the grammatical function, and =
once it was changed, he liked it, but somehow it has retained some =
shading from its origin as past tense. This, perhaps explains some =
inconsistency in canon.
I don=E2=80=99t know.
My little head hurts. Make it stop.
pItlh
lojmIt tI'wI'nuv
> On Dec 3, 2015, at 2:37 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
>=20
> On 12/3/2015 2:12 PM, Will Martin wrote:
>> I=E2=80=99m trying to wrap my head around this.
>>=20
>> 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.
>>=20
>> 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.
>=20
> All this is true, but this is how languages work. In the case of =
perfective, if you specify an elongated time context, then the action is =
completed some time during that time context. Because perfective =
expresses an action without an internal temporal description, you're not =
saying how long the action lasted, just that it occurred and was =
completed.
>=20
>> 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.
>=20
> A perfective verb is not timeless, but its time may be unspecified =
and/or merely understood. There is a difference.
>=20
>> 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.
>=20
> Except he clearly doesn't mean that. "Then you will have seen it =
twenty years from now" would be a silly thing to say, so that's =
obviously not what he meant. Therefore we know that he means it already =
happened.
>=20
>> Valkris tells him that he will find it useful to the mission.
>=20
> Qu'vaD lI' net tu'bej
> one finds it useful for the mission
>=20
> Notice there's no time stamp here, but we KNOW she means the part of =
the mission that's still to come, not the part of the mission they've =
already accomplished. How do we know that?
>=20
>> 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.
>=20
> It's general. She's not finished understanding. She's describing her =
state of understanding. This is not a perfective, or even perfect, =
concept.
>=20
>> 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.
>=20
> I think we can take TKD at face value in this for most cases, and I =
can demonstrate it over and over; you have to invent new rules "like =
optional helper words" to find a way to justify grammar that explicitly =
contradicts it. Which is simpler?
>=20
>> 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.
>=20
> No. The seeing of the Genesis data is complete. The understanding of =
the consequences is a general state that has no completion.
>=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=_B1720CD1-A403-46AC-A9EF-3F077589F737
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 really trying to grok your =
version of how the perfective works in Klingon. It=E2=80=99s not easy. =
Maybe you are 100% correct here. I=E2=80=99m trying not to perpetuate =
the argument. That would be far easier. All I=E2=80=99d have to do is =
not listen to you and plow on, as we often do here.</div><div =
class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">So, trying to explain =
how I understand this, I=E2=80=99ve seen a verb without a Type 7 suffix =
as if it were a dot on the time line. The action of the verb happens. =
That=E2=80=99s the dot. Maybe it also happened at some points before and =
after the dot. We don=E2=80=99t care. We=E2=80=99re just noting that at =
least a dot of activity happens within the time setting of the =
statement. {wa=E2=80=99Hu=E2=80=99 jIyIt.} I walked yesterday. I =
probably didn=E2=80=99t walk all day long. I probably took more than one =
step at a walking pace. Somewhere between these extremes, walking =
happened, and I was the perpetrator.</div><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">A strict interpretation of =E2=80=9CIf =
there=E2=80=99s no Type 7 suffix, then=E2=80=A6=E2=80=9D would conclude =
that there can=E2=80=99t be any other activity beyond the dot. It=E2=80=99=
s a dot, not a line segment, because the whole point of Type 7 is to =
describe the line segment. Actions typically do not happen without =
starts, continuations and endings. The question is, what is it about the =
action we want to comment on in terms of start, continuation, and stop? =
If those aspects of the action are not important to our statements, then =
we don=E2=80=99t use Type 7 suffixes. It doesn=E2=80=99t mean the action =
is not a time line segment. We simply don=E2=80=99t care enough to note =
what KIND of line segment the action is on the time line.</div><div =
class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">Add {-taH}, and the =
action becomes a line with a vague start and a vague end. It goes in =
both directions farther than we are looking. The focus is on it being a =
line segment with no noteworthy start or stop within the time context of =
the statement. {wa=E2=80=99Hu=E2=80=99 jIyIttaH.} I walked all day =
yesterday.</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">Add =
{-choH} and it starts at a point and continues off into the future =
farther than we are looking. We don=E2=80=99t care how far it goes. =
We=E2=80=99re noting that the dot is the starting point. It=E2=80=99s a =
line segment with a known beginning and an ending or absence of ending =
that we don=E2=80=99t care about when we make the statement. {wa=E2=80=99H=
u=E2=80=99 jIyItchoH.} I started walking yesterday. </div><div =
class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">Okay. I get =
it.</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">The =
perfective refers to the endpoint of the action in the same way that =
{-choH} points to the beginning of the action. {wa=E2=80=99Hu=E2=80=99 =
jIyItpu=E2=80=99}. Yesterday, I stopped walking.</div><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">While this makes sense to me, if =
that=E2=80=99s how it works, Okrand did a piss poor job of explaining it =
in TKD. Nowhere do we get a translation that fits this model of what the =
perfective means. {vaj Daleghpu=E2=80=99} is not translated =E2=80=9CThus =
you stopped seeing it.=E2=80=9D</div><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">If {-pu=E2=80=99} is the flip side of =
{-choH}, indicating that completion (and cessation) of the action occurs =
in the time context of the sentence, then that should be a valid =
translation. Instead, we get, =E2=80=9CThen you=E2=80=99ve seen it,=E2=80=9D=
which falls back to my sense that the completion occurs in the time =
context of the sentence OR BEFORE.</div><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">I believe the difference between =
{-choH} as a beginning and {-pu=E2=80=99} as an ending is that {-choH} =
marks the time that the action begins, while {-pu=E2=80=99} merely =
indicates that completion has occurred. It doesn=E2=80=99t peg the =
timing of the completion the same way that {-choH} pegs the =
beginning.</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">You =
think that it DOES peg the timing of the completion the same way that =
{-choH} pegs the beginning of the action, right? Am I understanding you =
correctly?</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">And =
if I am understanding you correctly, then why isn=E2=80=99t =E2=80=9CThen =
you stopped seeing it=E2=80=9D a valid translation of {vaj Daleghpu=E2=80=99=
}? Or is it a valid translation? And if it is, why haven=E2=80=99t there =
been any examples of it being done this way?</div><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">I know this sounds like I=E2=80=99m in =
your face, challenging you. That=E2=80=99s honestly not my intent. I=E2=80=
=99m not sure how to word it better. I=E2=80=99ve always had the sense =
that {-choH} is of a fundamentally different character than {-pu=E2=80=99}=
, that {-choH} is the dot at the beginning of a vector, while {-pu=E2=80=99=
} is more like a shape than a point. Vague start, definite stop, the =
combined shape together, not a focus on the point, alone.</div><div =
class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">As I look at it in my =
mind, your model (if I=E2=80=99m understanding it) is cleaner. My model =
is probably contaminated by having Okrand tell me that {-pu=E2=80=99} =
was originally intended to be past tense, and one of the famous botched =
lines made him change the grammatical function, and once it was changed, =
he liked it, but somehow it has retained some shading from its origin as =
past tense. This, perhaps explains some inconsistency in =
canon.</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">I =
don=E2=80=99t know.</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div =
class=3D"">My little head hurts. Make it stop.</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 2:37 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 2:12 =
PM, Will Martin wrote:<br class=3D""><blockquote type=3D"cite" =
class=3D"">I=E2=80=99m trying to wrap my head around this.<br =
class=3D""><br class=3D"">The issue of time context is messy, since most =
forms of time stamp<br class=3D"">involve a duration as well as a time =
anchor. {wa=E2=80=99Hu=E2=80=99} is not a specific<br class=3D"">instant, =
but any of an infinite number of instants between the dawn with<br =
class=3D"">today=E2=80=99s date and the dawn with one less than =
today=E2=80=99s date, or it can<br class=3D"">refer to any duration =
within that larger duration, including the entire<br =
class=3D"">duration.<br class=3D""><br class=3D"">Even the instant =
specified by {DaH} is squishy, since, depending on<br class=3D"">context, =
it can mean the duration of the expression of the word (which<br =
class=3D"">is still full of an infinite number of instants), to a vague, =
larger<br class=3D"">duration moment in time that includes the instants =
that involve the<br class=3D"">expression of the word.<br =
class=3D""></blockquote><br class=3D"">All this is true, but this is how =
languages work. In the case of perfective, if you specify an elongated =
time context, then the action is completed some time during that time =
context. Because perfective expresses an action without an internal =
temporal description, you're not saying how long the action lasted, just =
that it occurred and was completed.<br class=3D""><br =
class=3D""><blockquote type=3D"cite" class=3D"">I have always assumed =
that the perfective supplements the temporal<br class=3D"">information =
given by the explicit or implied time stamp, and that<br =
class=3D"">expressions that are timeless are exceptional. They exist, =
but they are<br class=3D"">relatively rare. Timelessness with the =
perfective seems even more<br class=3D"">exceptional.<br =
class=3D""></blockquote><br class=3D"">A perfective verb is not =
timeless, but its time may be unspecified and/or merely understood. =
There is a difference.<br class=3D""><br class=3D""><blockquote =
type=3D"cite" class=3D"">It seems like if you want to say that Kruge =
=E2=80=9CDOESN=E2=80=99T SAY WHEN THIS<br class=3D"">HAPPENS=E2=80=9D, =
then there=E2=80=99s no reason to exclude the future. He could just =
as<br class=3D"">easily mean, =E2=80=9CThus you will complete seeing it =
twenty years from now.=E2=80=9D<br class=3D"">If there=E2=80=99s no time =
reference, then there=E2=80=99s no time reference. An absence<br =
class=3D"">of time reference does not imply past tense, which is what =
you are<br class=3D"">suggesting.<br class=3D""></blockquote><br =
class=3D"">Except he clearly doesn't mean that. "Then you will have seen =
it twenty years from now" would be a silly thing to say, so that's =
obviously not what he meant. Therefore we know that he means it already =
happened.<br class=3D""><br class=3D""><blockquote type=3D"cite" =
class=3D"">Valkris tells him that he will find it useful to the =
mission.<br class=3D""></blockquote><br class=3D""> Qu'vaD =
lI' net tu'bej<br class=3D""> one finds it useful for the =
mission<br class=3D""><br class=3D"">Notice there's no time stamp here, =
but we KNOW she means the part of the mission that's still to come, not =
the part of the mission they've already accomplished. How do we know =
that?<br class=3D""><br class=3D""><blockquote type=3D"cite" =
class=3D"">She doesn=E2=80=99t say, {jIyajpu=E2=80=99}. Is that to =
suggest that her understanding<br class=3D"">is incomplete, or habitual, =
or general, and not referring to any<br class=3D"">specific thing that =
he has said? No. He has said something, and she has<br =
class=3D"">understood what he said.<br class=3D""></blockquote><br =
class=3D"">It's general. She's not finished understanding. She's =
describing her state of understanding. This is not a perfective, or even =
perfect, concept.<br class=3D""><br class=3D""><blockquote type=3D"cite" =
class=3D"">I honestly believe that canon fails to conform to the clear =
and explicit<br class=3D"">statement in TKD that the absence of a Type 7 =
verb suffix implies that<br class=3D"">there is no continuation or =
completion of the action. In practice, these<br class=3D"">suffixes =
function more like optional helper words in English. You<br =
class=3D"">include them when their added meaning are noteworthy, and you =
omit them<br class=3D"">when they are not.<br class=3D""></blockquote><br =
class=3D"">I think we can take TKD at face value in this for most cases, =
and I can demonstrate it over and over; you have to invent new rules =
"like optional helper words" to find a way to justify grammar that =
explicitly contradicts it. Which is simpler?<br class=3D""><br =
class=3D""><blockquote type=3D"cite" class=3D"">It=E2=80=99s noteworthy =
that the completion of the action of seeing the Genesis<br =
class=3D"">Project is complete. It=E2=80=99s not noteworthy that the =
action of<br class=3D"">understanding what Kruge just said is complete. =
It actually IS complete,<br class=3D"">but that=E2=80=99s not as =
important as expressing that she understood what he said.<br =
class=3D""></blockquote><br class=3D"">No. The seeing of the Genesis =
data is complete. The understanding of the consequences is a general =
state that has no completion.<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=_B1720CD1-A403-46AC-A9EF-3F077589F737--
--===============7921964865024844969==
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
--===============7921964865024844969==--
