[102893] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Aspect, etc
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alan Anderson)
Fri Dec 4 13:57:39 2015
In-Reply-To: <CA+7zAmPCRBcRADv+o-38_EsfzEezrk3gTh4xO9HugCeK5e9rFA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alan Anderson <qunchuy@alcaco.net>
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:57:02 -0500
To: tlhIngan Hol mailing list <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
I clearly don't have the internalized understanding of aspect that
others do. It is increasingly apparent that my desire to understand
aspect based mostly on TKD's explanations isn't working as a basis for
debate.
It's also increasingly frustrating for me to read things like "the
action continues, but it isn't a continuous action" and "the existence
of an aspect marker usually means something besides what an aspect
marker means." I can't tell where my lack of understanding is due to
ignorance, where it's due to stubbornness, or where it's due to the
supposed explanation having an error.
So I think my most promising course of action is this: I will continue
to use aspect suffixes the way I have been using them, which I still
think is consistent with the examples I know. I will continue not to
challenge their use unless it's something that I can't make sense out
of. And I will stop trying to wrap my head around the theories that
don't limit themselves to the specific words used to describe aspect
in TKD, because I always get more heartburn than pleasure out of this
particular attempt to analyze Klingon.
tIqwIj Sa'angnISbe'. DaHjaj Hol SuvwI' jIHbe'. Hol jatlhwI''e'
vIDaqa'. jatwIj'e' Sa'ang jay'!
-- ghunchu'wI'
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
