[102905] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Aspect, etc
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (De'vID)
Sat Dec 5 05:21:16 2015
In-Reply-To: <5661f042.e9b13c0a.452b9.0d9a@mx.google.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2015 11:20:58 +0100
From: "De'vID" <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com>
To: tlhIngan Hol mailing list <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
QISta':
> But this does remind me of the "itist-atist" controversy in Esperanto
> history (I guess -ot- was never an issue). [...]
QISta':
> So basically, because being born is an action involving a conclusive end
> result, it's easy to see the distinction here. In one case, the event of
> John's birth happens and is completed sometime in 1991 (theoretically it
> could have happened before then, but that's extremely unlikely because if
> someone meant to say that they'd say it explicitly). In the other, a
> continuous action of John being born was going on in 1991. Like maybe if he
> was born at midnight on New Year's Day, one could say "Johano estis naskata
> en 1991, sed naskita en 1992".
>
> Does it seem that I understand this concept of aspect? Or am I just
> confusing you? :-/
What you describe sounds exactly like what we're talking about.
This is the canonical way to say when someone was born or how old he
is, in Klingon:
{loSmaH ben jIboghpu'} "I am 40 years old"
Without the {-pu'}, it sounds odd, at least when describing the birth
of a single person. But since we're talking Star Trek, we can perhaps
imagine a species with a long (decades or centuries) birthing process
involving multiple offspring. In that case, {loSmaH ben boghpu' chaH}
would mean they were born (had completed being born) 40 years ago, but
{loSmaH ben bogh chaH} would mean that (some part of) the action of
their being born took place 40 years ago, but that it didn't
necessarily finish 40 years ago.
--
De'vID
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
