[102853] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Aspect, etc
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Will Martin)
Fri Dec 4 10:08:55 2015
From: Will Martin <lojmitti7wi7nuv@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 10:08:29 -0500
To: tlhIngan Hol mailing list <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
In-Reply-To: <56610603.2010200@trimboli.name>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
--===============2470486374652367859==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D7A42D05-00B1-4043-AFC9-259F18C464A0"
--Apple-Mail=_D7A42D05-00B1-4043-AFC9-259F18C464A0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=utf-8
Thank you for your patience. I haven=E2=80=99t been this bone-headed =
about Klingon grammar since Qanqor struggled to teach me that =E2=80=9Cbe=E2=
=80=9D verbs acted like verbs when placed before subjects, but acted =
like adjectives when placed after nouns.
I think you have convinced me, though I would be presumptive to assume =
that I fully grok what I=E2=80=99ve been convinced of. I THINK I got it.
I=E2=80=99m disappointed in myself for speaking the language this long =
without grasping this particular grammatical issue. I thought that usage =
had tended to make vague whether the completion occurred within or =
previous to the time environment established by context or time stamp, =
so I created a model that accepted that observation.
I can only see, over time, whether I have fashioned a sufficiently =
effective new model to use the perfective properly.
pItlh
lojmIt tI'wI'nuv
> On Dec 3, 2015, at 10:18 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
>=20
> On 12/3/2015 9:09 PM, Alan Anderson wrote:
>=20
>> Two of the paq'batlh examples describe what I read as ongoing
>> actions. You even pointed that out in the {bot} passage:
>>> ...we're not talking about the beginning and the end of the
>>> blocking; we're talking about the blocking happening and continuing
>>> the story with the blocking still going on. We're just describing
>>> the FACT of the blocking.
>>=20
>> Though "the blocking [is] still going on", you explain the lack of a
>> {-taH} suffix by saying that the story is "just describing the FACT
>> of the blocking." I do not see a distinction between that and
>> "doesn't need the aspect suffix because that's not what the focus is
>> on."
>=20
> I'm sorry I have been unable to get you to understand the distinction.
>=20
> The concepts one expresses through language are not equal to reality. =
When one breaks up an idea, as paq'batlh breaks up Kahless and Morath's =
run from their house to Gre'thor, each sentence is only expressing a =
portion of the concept. If you look at the middle of the run and want to =
describe that, a continuous aspect would be most appropriate. But the =
story doesn't look at the middle. It looks at the beginning and it looks =
at the end separately. When looking at the beginning it is not =
continuous--it has an abrupt start. At no point are you actually looking =
at the middle of the run in a sentence, so at no point is the continuous =
aspect appropriate. At no point are you talking about running when the =
running ends, so the perfective suffix is not appropriate.
>=20
> The blocking of the run is also broken up conceptually. I don't think =
it's mentioned again, but it definitely starts abruptly and continues =
from there. Again, when looking at that as a single piece, which the =
sentence does, it is not continuous; it has a starting point. At no =
point does any sentence talk about the middle of the blocking, nor does =
any sentence talk about the completion of the blocking, so we don't see =
those suffixes.
>=20
> There IS a difference.
>=20
>>> Remember, perfective is not just "completed," it's "completed and
>>> viewing the action as a whole, without visualizing how it behaves
>>> over time."
>>=20
>> That might be what "perfective" means in general linguistic usage.
>> But the part of the definition after "completed" is not how TKD
>> defines {-pu'}.
>=20
> If Okrand didn't mean "aspect" and "perfective" then he shouldn't have =
said "aspect" and "perfective" many times and used {-pu'} and {-ta'} in =
sentences that have aspect and are perfective.
>=20
> He was writing a grammar for laymen, not linguists. He wasn't giving =
an exact definition, but he DID use the correct term. His explanation is =
correct, but simplistic.
>=20
> His definition also doesn't say anything about time contexts, but =
we've traditionally had no problem telling people on this list it means =
an action occurs before the time context.
>=20
>> I can think of only a single example that makes more
>> sense with your interpretation than with the TKD-only one: {X ben
>> jIboghpu'} for "I am X years old." Nothing else I know of hints at a
>> "viewing the action as a whole" meaning for {-pu'}
>=20
> Sigh. Examples coming up.
>=20
> SutlhtaHvIS chaH DIHIvpu'
> while they were negotiating we attacked them (TKD)
>=20
> It would not make sense to say that we had already attacked them while =
we were negotiating, or that we completed attacking them while we they =
were negotiating (if we started to attack them they'd stop negotiating =
before we could complete the attack). The attack is viewed as an atomic =
whole. We're not looking at the start of the attack or the middle of the =
attack or the end of the attack. We're not talking about attacks in =
general or any kind of habit we have for attacking. The attack happened =
and was completed.
>=20
> yaS qIppu' 'e' vIlegh
> I saw him/her hit the officers (TKD)
>=20
> I didn't see that he HAD hit the officers or that he has hit officers =
in the past or that he started to hit the officers. There was a hit or =
multiple hits, it or they were enacted and completed, and it or they are =
treated as an atomic whole that I saw.
>=20
> ghorgh Haw'pu' yaS
> when did the officer flee? (TKD)
>=20
> This is not asking when it was true that the officer had already fled =
or when the officer started to flee. This is asking when that atomic =
unit of fleeing took place.
>=20
> QI'tomerDaq Heghpu' Hoch
> everyone died at Khitomer (TKW)
>=20
> It's not saying that at Khitomer everyone had already died. It's =
saying that at Khitomer everyone died, full stop. They were at Khitomer, =
then dying happened and was completed, all in one concept.
>=20
>> Generic "pure" perfective is a dot without internal structure? Fine,
>> I'll accept that. But I think there is adequate evidence that
>> Klingon perfective does not match such an ideal definition.
>=20
> So do I! But "usually" the definition holds. It's perfective, but in =
paq'batlh (and only in paq'batlh) there are also elements of perfect =
tense.
>=20
> --=20
> SuStel
> http://www.trimboli.name/
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
--Apple-Mail=_D7A42D05-00B1-4043-AFC9-259F18C464A0
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"">Thank you for your patience. I haven=E2=80=99t =
been this bone-headed about Klingon grammar since Qanqor struggled to =
teach me that =E2=80=9Cbe=E2=80=9D verbs acted like verbs when placed =
before subjects, but acted like adjectives when placed after =
nouns.</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">I think =
you have convinced me, though I would be presumptive to assume that I =
fully grok what I=E2=80=99ve been convinced of. I THINK I got =
it.</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">I=E2=80=99m =
disappointed in myself for speaking the language this long without =
grasping this particular grammatical issue. I thought that usage had =
tended to make vague whether the completion occurred within or previous =
to the time environment established by context or time stamp, so I =
created a model that accepted that observation.</div><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">I can only see, over time, whether I =
have fashioned a sufficiently effective new model to use the perfective =
properly.</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 10:18 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 9:09 =
PM, Alan Anderson wrote:<br class=3D""><br class=3D""><blockquote =
type=3D"cite" class=3D"">Two of the paq'batlh examples describe what I =
read as ongoing<br class=3D"">actions. You even pointed that out in the =
{bot} passage:<br class=3D""><blockquote type=3D"cite" class=3D"">...we're=
not talking about the beginning and the end of the<br =
class=3D"">blocking; we're talking about the blocking happening and =
continuing<br class=3D"">the story with the blocking still going on. =
We're just describing<br class=3D"">the FACT of the blocking.<br =
class=3D""></blockquote><br class=3D"">Though "the blocking [is] still =
going on", you explain the lack of a<br class=3D"">{-taH} suffix by =
saying that the story is "just describing the FACT<br class=3D"">of the =
blocking." I do not see a distinction between that and<br =
class=3D"">"doesn't need the aspect suffix because that's not what the =
focus is<br class=3D"">on."<br class=3D""></blockquote><br class=3D"">I'm =
sorry I have been unable to get you to understand the distinction.<br =
class=3D""><br class=3D"">The concepts one expresses through language =
are not equal to reality. When one breaks up an idea, as paq'batlh =
breaks up Kahless and Morath's run from their house to Gre'thor, each =
sentence is only expressing a portion of the concept. If you look at the =
middle of the run and want to describe that, a continuous aspect would =
be most appropriate. But the story doesn't look at the middle. It looks =
at the beginning and it looks at the end separately. When looking at the =
beginning it is not continuous--it has an abrupt start. At no point are =
you actually looking at the middle of the run in a sentence, so at no =
point is the continuous aspect appropriate. At no point are you talking =
about running when the running ends, so the perfective suffix is not =
appropriate.<br class=3D""><br class=3D"">The blocking of the run is =
also broken up conceptually. I don't think it's mentioned again, but it =
definitely starts abruptly and continues from there. Again, when looking =
at that as a single piece, which the sentence does, it is not =
continuous; it has a starting point. At no point does any sentence talk =
about the middle of the blocking, nor does any sentence talk about the =
completion of the blocking, so we don't see those suffixes.<br =
class=3D""><br class=3D"">There IS a difference.<br class=3D""><br =
class=3D""><blockquote type=3D"cite" class=3D""><blockquote type=3D"cite" =
class=3D"">Remember, perfective is not just "completed," it's "completed =
and<br class=3D"">viewing the action as a whole, without visualizing how =
it behaves<br class=3D"">over time."<br class=3D""></blockquote><br =
class=3D"">That might be what "perfective" means in general linguistic =
usage.<br class=3D"">But the part of the definition after "completed" is =
not how TKD<br class=3D"">defines {-pu'}.<br class=3D""></blockquote><br =
class=3D"">If Okrand didn't mean "aspect" and "perfective" then he =
shouldn't have said "aspect" and "perfective" many times and used {-pu'} =
and {-ta'} in sentences that have aspect and are perfective.<br =
class=3D""><br class=3D"">He was writing a grammar for laymen, not =
linguists. He wasn't giving an exact definition, but he DID use the =
correct term. His explanation is correct, but simplistic.<br =
class=3D""><br class=3D"">His definition also doesn't say anything about =
time contexts, but we've traditionally had no problem telling people on =
this list it means an action occurs before the time context.<br =
class=3D""><br class=3D""><blockquote type=3D"cite" class=3D"">I can =
think of only a single example that makes more<br class=3D"">sense with =
your interpretation than with the TKD-only one: {X ben<br =
class=3D"">jIboghpu'} for "I am X years old." Nothing else I know of =
hints at a<br class=3D"">"viewing the action as a whole" meaning for =
{-pu'}<br class=3D""></blockquote><br class=3D"">Sigh. Examples coming =
up.<br class=3D""><br class=3D""> SutlhtaHvIS chaH =
DIHIvpu'<br class=3D""> while they were negotiating we =
attacked them (TKD)<br class=3D""><br class=3D"">It would not make sense =
to say that we had already attacked them while we were negotiating, or =
that we completed attacking them while we they were negotiating (if we =
started to attack them they'd stop negotiating before we could complete =
the attack). The attack is viewed as an atomic whole. We're not looking =
at the start of the attack or the middle of the attack or the end of the =
attack. We're not talking about attacks in general or any kind of habit =
we have for attacking. The attack happened and was completed.<br =
class=3D""><br class=3D""> yaS qIppu' 'e' vIlegh<br =
class=3D""> I saw him/her hit the officers (TKD)<br =
class=3D""><br class=3D"">I didn't see that he HAD hit the officers or =
that he has hit officers in the past or that he started to hit the =
officers. There was a hit or multiple hits, it or they were enacted and =
completed, and it or they are treated as an atomic whole that I saw.<br =
class=3D""><br class=3D""> ghorgh Haw'pu' yaS<br class=3D""> =
when did the officer flee? (TKD)<br class=3D""><br =
class=3D"">This is not asking when it was true that the officer had =
already fled or when the officer started to flee. This is asking when =
that atomic unit of fleeing took place.<br class=3D""><br =
class=3D"">QI'tomerDaq Heghpu' Hoch<br class=3D"">everyone died at =
Khitomer (TKW)<br class=3D""><br class=3D"">It's not saying that at =
Khitomer everyone had already died. It's saying that at Khitomer =
everyone died, full stop. They were at Khitomer, then dying happened and =
was completed, all in one concept.<br class=3D""><br =
class=3D""><blockquote type=3D"cite" class=3D"">Generic "pure" =
perfective is a dot without internal structure? Fine,<br class=3D"">I'll =
accept that. But I think there is adequate evidence that<br =
class=3D"">Klingon perfective does not match such an ideal =
definition.<br class=3D""></blockquote><br class=3D"">So do I! But =
"usually" the definition holds. It's perfective, but in paq'batlh (and =
only in paq'batlh) there are also elements of perfect tense.<br =
class=3D""><br class=3D"">-- <br class=3D"">SuStel<br class=3D""><a =
href=3D"http://www.trimboli.name/" =
class=3D"">http://www.trimboli.name/</a><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=_D7A42D05-00B1-4043-AFC9-259F18C464A0--
--===============2470486374652367859==
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
--===============2470486374652367859==--
