[111951] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Using -ta' during -taHvIS
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Daniel Dadap)
Mon Feb 25 20:40:28 2019
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
From: Daniel Dadap <daniel@dadap.net>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 19:40:21 -0600
In-Reply-To: <136eefa4-50a4-9c80-b716-fe3342fc6986@trimboli.name>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
X-Report-Abuse-To: spam@scanner01.mail.supportedns.com
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
--===============5224933894863011755==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary=Apple-Mail-8D423558-1B6B-4CAA-966E-E1E5B96CD5F5
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
--Apple-Mail-8D423558-1B6B-4CAA-966E-E1E5B96CD5F5
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> On Feb 25, 2019, at 17:00, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
> That's the one.
Ah, okay. I was hoping maybe there was something more definitively worded on=
the matter somewhere else that I couldn=E2=80=99t find.
> "Usually" allows for exceptions, such as not being allowed to put a type 7=
suffix on the second verb of a sentence-as-object. And if a rule "usually" h=
olds, then it usually holds, and is not merely optional.
>=20
Okay. It probably does, and I=E2=80=99ll personally consider using aspect ma=
rkers when the meaning calls for them a best, most correct, practice, but I=E2=
=80=99m still not totally convinced that it=E2=80=99s definitely, 100% true.=
Just the mere fact that a verb taking a sentence as an object can=E2=80=99t=
have a type 7 suffix (but probably can have a perfective or imperfective me=
aning) makes me personally think that the suffix *may* not be totally needed=
to communicate that meaning. But it is also entirely possible that taking a=
sentence as object is the only case in which these suffixes may be omitted d=
espite the meaning calling for them, or one of a very small number of other c=
ases.
Anyway, I do think the language in TKD 4.2.7 certainly suggests that using t=
he aspect markers is a good thing to do, but I=E2=80=99ve seen a lot of (non=
-canon) usage that seems consistent with a looser, more =E2=80=9Coptional=E2=
=80=9D view of the suffixes than the one you promote. I haven=E2=80=99t yet s=
tudied the canon sufficiently to see if the same holds true in canon.
In particular, the Duolingo course seems to use verbs with no aspect markers=
with English translations in the simple past quite regularly, in sentences w=
here it seems like the meaning would indicate a completed action. It does se=
em that at least a few people feel that the aspect markers can be left off, s=
o I=E2=80=99d be interested in hearing some arguments in favor of such a vie=
w as well, if anybody has them.
> I made no claim about having to translate verbs with English simple presen=
t. That's just a TKD convention.
>=20
Sorry, I didn=E2=80=99t mean to make it sound like I was claiming you=E2=80=99=
ve made such a claim. I was merely saying that the language about the simple=
present likely referred specifically to the translating convention in the d=
ictionary, as you=E2=80=99ve pointed out as well.
> The "usually" is just part of Okrand's usual bit about the dictionary bein=
g only a basic sketch of the language.
>=20
Which in turn is probably because he didn=E2=80=99t want to pin things down i=
n too fine detail, to leave some flexibility for future work on the language=
.=
--Apple-Mail-8D423558-1B6B-4CAA-966E-E1E5B96CD5F5
Content-Type: text/html;
charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html><head><meta http-equiv=3D"content-type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3D=
utf-8"></head><body dir=3D"auto"><div dir=3D"ltr"></div><div dir=3D"ltr"><br=
></div><div dir=3D"ltr">On Feb 25, 2019, at 17:00, SuStel <<a href=3D"mai=
lto:sustel@trimboli.name">sustel@trimboli.name</a>> wrote:<br>That's the o=
ne.</div><div><br></div>Ah, okay. I was hoping maybe there was something mor=
e definitively worded on the matter somewhere else that I couldn=E2=80=99t f=
ind.<br><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div dir=3D"ltr">
=20
<p>"Usually" allows for exceptions, such as not being allowed to put
a type 7 suffix on the second verb of a sentence-as-object. And if
a rule "usually" holds, then it usually holds, and is not merely
optional.</p></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Okay. It probably d=
oes, and I=E2=80=99ll personally consider using aspect markers when the mean=
ing calls for them a best, most correct, practice, but I=E2=80=99m still not=
totally convinced that it=E2=80=99s definitely, 100% true. Just the mere fa=
ct that a verb taking a sentence as an object can=E2=80=99t have a type 7 su=
ffix (but probably can have a perfective or imperfective meaning) makes me p=
ersonally think that the suffix *may* not be totally needed to communicate t=
hat meaning. But it is also entirely possible that taking a sentence as obje=
ct is the only case in which these suffixes may be omitted despite the meani=
ng calling for them, or one of a very small number of other cases.</div><div=
><br></div><div>Anyway, I do think the language in TKD 4.2.7 certainly sugge=
sts that using the aspect markers is a good thing to do, but I=E2=80=99ve se=
en a lot of (non-canon) usage that seems consistent with a looser, more =E2=80=
=9Coptional=E2=80=9D view of the suffixes than the one you promote. I haven=E2=
=80=99t yet studied the canon sufficiently to see if the same holds true in c=
anon.</div><div><br></div><div>In particular, the Duolingo course seems to u=
se verbs with no aspect markers with English translations in the simple past=
quite regularly, in sentences where it seems like the meaning would indicat=
e a completed action. It does seem that at least a few people feel that the a=
spect markers can be left off, so I=E2=80=99d be interested in hearing some a=
rguments in favor of such a view as well, if anybody has them.</div><div><br=
></div><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div dir=3D"ltr"><p>I made no claim about h=
aving to translate verbs with English
simple present. That's just a TKD convention.</p></div></blockquote><d=
iv><br></div><div>Sorry, I didn=E2=80=99t mean to make it sound like I was c=
laiming you=E2=80=99ve made such a claim. I was merely saying that the langu=
age about the simple present likely referred specifically to the translating=
convention in the dictionary, as you=E2=80=99ve pointed out as well.</div><=
br><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div dir=3D"ltr"><p>The "usually" is just part o=
f Okrand's usual bit about the
dictionary being only a basic sketch of the language.</p></div></blockqu=
ote><br><div>Which in turn is probably because he didn=E2=80=99t want to pin=
things down in too fine detail, to leave some flexibility for future work o=
n the language.</div></body></html>=
--Apple-Mail-8D423558-1B6B-4CAA-966E-E1E5B96CD5F5--
--===============5224933894863011755==
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
--===============5224933894863011755==--
