[111947] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Using -ta' during -taHvIS
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (SuStel)
Mon Feb 25 16:30:32 2019
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
From: SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 16:30:26 -0500
In-Reply-To: <64B29053-D141-45DF-B66C-C939A5B7624B@mac.com>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--===============3036194657036662128==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------FBB5F3F16490AE6792A76113"
Content-Language: en-US
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------FBB5F3F16490AE6792A76113
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
On 2/25/2019 3:42 PM, Will Martin wrote:
> Is feeding a cat really that much of an accomplishment? Is it that
> important to point out that you had planned feeding the cat as your
> goal and that you successfully reached that goal? If so, then by all
> means, use {-ta’}.
*-ta'* has nothing to do with your sense of accomplishment. It has to do
with whether you did something intentionally. If you did, you have the
option of using either *-pu'* or *-ta'* (or *rIntaH* if the completion
was particularly final).
*vIghro' vIje'ta'*/I fed at the cat./ It wasn't a particularly momentous
occasion, but I intentionally fed the cat and completed my feeding of
the cat.
> Why bother with a suffix if it doesn’t really add much to the meaning?
> It’s okay to omit it. I don’t have to explain to you why I omitted it.
> I did not make a mistake by omitting it. I would not have made a
> mistake by including it. It’s my choice. I can say it the way I want
> to say it.
Incorrect. Omitting a type 7 suffix on a verb explicitly means the
action is not continuous and not perfective. It doesn't add optional
meaning; if you are describing a completed action, you need a perfective
suffix on it.
*vIghro' vIje'* /I feed the cat./ From whatever vantage point I am
describing this sentence, I am describing a non-continuous,
non-completed action. For instance, a statement that, as the cat's
owner, I feed the cat isn't a continuous action (I'm not doing it
nonstop if I'm not Jon Arbuckle) or a completed action (I'm still the
cat's owner and I still feed it). For another instance, if I'm telling a
story, and in the moment described I feed the cat, then in that moment
the feeding is neither continuous nor completed. *(jIvem, jItuQ'eghmoH,
vIghro' vIje', puchpa' vISuch...)*
But one thing that *vIghro' vIje'* cannot mean is that there was this
one time I'm looking back on in which I fed a cat. For that you /must/
include perfective.
--
SuStel
http://trimboli.name
--------------FBB5F3F16490AE6792A76113
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/25/2019 3:42 PM, Will Martin
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:64B29053-D141-45DF-B66C-C939A5B7624B@mac.com">
<div class="">Is feeding a cat really that much of an
accomplishment? Is it that important to point out that you had
planned feeding the cat as your goal and that you successfully
reached that goal? If so, then by all means, use {-ta’}.</div>
</blockquote>
<p><b>-ta'</b> has nothing to do with your sense of accomplishment.
It has to do with whether you did something intentionally. If you
did, you have the option of using either <b>-pu'</b> or <b>-ta'</b>
(or <b>rIntaH</b> if the completion was particularly final).</p>
<p><b>vIghro' vIje'ta'</b><i> I fed at the cat.</i> It wasn't a
particularly momentous occasion, but I intentionally fed the cat
and completed my feeding of the cat.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:64B29053-D141-45DF-B66C-C939A5B7624B@mac.com">
<div class="">Why bother with a suffix if it doesn’t really add
much to the meaning? It’s okay to omit it. I don’t have to
explain to you why I omitted it. I did not make a mistake by
omitting it. I would not have made a mistake by including it.
It’s my choice. I can say it the way I want to say it.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Incorrect. Omitting a type 7 suffix on a verb explicitly means
the action is not continuous and not perfective. It doesn't add
optional meaning; if you are describing a completed action, you
need a perfective suffix on it.</p>
<p><b>vIghro' vIje'</b> <i>I feed the cat.</i> From whatever
vantage point I am describing this sentence, I am describing a
non-continuous, non-completed action. For instance, a statement
that, as the cat's owner, I feed the cat isn't a continuous action
(I'm not doing it nonstop if I'm not Jon Arbuckle) or a completed
action (I'm still the cat's owner and I still feed it). For
another instance, if I'm telling a story, and in the moment
described I feed the cat, then in that moment the feeding is
neither continuous nor completed. <b>(jIvem, jItuQ'eghmoH,
vIghro' vIje', puchpa' vISuch...)</b></p>
<p>But one thing that <b>vIghro' vIje'</b> cannot mean is that
there was this one time I'm looking back on in which I fed a cat.
For that you <i>must</i> include perfective.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>
--------------FBB5F3F16490AE6792A76113--
--===============3036194657036662128==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
--===============3036194657036662128==--
