[102823] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Aspect, etc
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (SuStel)
Thu Dec 3 16:56:30 2015
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
From: SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 16:56:14 -0500
In-Reply-To: <5660B82A.5080700@trimboli.name>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
On 12/3/2015 4:46 PM, SuStel wrote:
> On 12/3/2015 4:15 PM, ghunchu'wI' wrote:
>> On Dec 3, 2015, at 3:51 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
>>
>>> Anyway, what are "all those examples"?
>>
>> I was referring to the ones you just posted.
>>
>> I think you were using them in order to show that your common
>> explanation of "habit" or "tendency" is not as ubiquitous as was
>> intimated. They lack an aspect suffix, but they don't get translated
>> the way TKD says to translate such verbs. They describe actions that
>> are variously completed, ongoing, or merely potential.
Wait a second... You're not arguing about TKD's translation conventions,
are you? How it says it translates {-pu'} as present perfect in English,
and so forth?
TKD's conventions are just for convenience and do not correspond to
Klingon grammar. They are also not followed very often. {vIleghpu'} "I
have seen it" but {qaja'pu'} "I told you" (not "I have told you").
Whether a given Klingon phrase is translated with English present
perfect or past tense or whatever is irrelevant. What the Klingon
sentence is trying to express is what counts. Klingon grammar works
without reference to English grammar.
--
SuStel
http://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
