[109086] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] -lI': intentional or not?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Lieven)
Sun Feb 26 04:45:05 2017
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
From: Lieven <levinius@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2017 10:45:07 +0100
In-Reply-To: <e1533b1e-df59-3ed7-bf25-6a3b26bdc2ac@trimboli.name>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
Am 25.02.2017 um 20:36 schrieb SuStel:
> There was a discussion on Facebook about whether *-lI'* needs to be
> intentional progress or not. I'm curious what other list members think.
Interesting question. The more I think about this, the more complicated
it gets.
My first reaction to your question is NO. When I send data, of course I
know that it will be finished soon, but it is not my personal
"intention" to have it finished. So far the short answer.
-------
But I do understand the confusion. Since {-ta'} is described as a non
continuous counterpart to {-lI'}, there seems to be some intention.
Saying {pumta' nagh} sounds like the stone has fallen by its own will.
This shifts the question a bit to a different topic: Can {-ta'} and
{-lI'} be used with non-living beings? That's what the intentionality
implies. Only living beings can do something with an intention.
Generally spoken, I would suggest to avoid aspect suffixes, or at least
not to use them too often. When you just say {pum nagh} the meaning is
quite the same. It's falling, and it certainly will stop. For instance,
see the word {Dor} "end": We all know that a period of time will end
somewhere, but you do not say {DorlI' jaj}.
> The arguments in favor say that a sentence like *pumlI' nagh* to refer
> to a stone that is falling to the ground due to, say, a landslide, is
> ungrammatical.
I would not be so strict to say that it is ungrammatical, because
technically spoken (TKD) you may add it to the verb, but I would wonder
if it was the stone's decision to do it:
TKD says:
{-ta'} is used when an activity was deliberately undertaken, the
implication being that someone set out to do something and in fact did it.
When I take this literally, {pumta' nagh} is nonsense. Since {-lI'} is
the continous counterpart of {-ta'}, {pumlI' nagh} is nonsense as well.
quod erat demonstrandum.
--
Lieven L. Litaer
aka Quvar valer 'utlh
Grammarian of the KLI
http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher
http://www.klingonwiki.net
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
