[111952] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Using -ta' during -taHvIS
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (SuStel)
Mon Feb 25 21:35:47 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 21:35:41 -0500
In-Reply-To: <F8D468FD-4398-48BA-BD2F-43A1190D1DB0@dadap.net>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--===============7888990976250583994==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------08F23F6AA0638FC86911D966"
Content-Language: en-US
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------08F23F6AA0638FC86911D966
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Damn. I lost the whole message I had written in response to this. I'll
give you the slightly shorter version.
On 2/25/2019 8:40 PM, Daniel Dadap wrote:
> Okay. It probably does, and I’ll personally consider using aspect
> markers when the meaning calls for them a best, most correct,
> practice, but I’m still not totally convinced that it’s definitely,
> 100% true.
Not 100% true. Just "usually" true. True enough that you should accept
it as true, and take note when Okrand himself violates it.
To put it another way: if you can leave off a type 7 suffix whenever you
want, what is the point of the text that says it's "usually" needed?
Certainly it's not giving you a grammatical quota. ("You left off five
out of your last ten aspect suffixes. Prepare to die!")
> Just the mere fact that a verb taking a sentence as an object can’t
> have a type 7 suffix (but probably can have a perfective or
> imperfective meaning) 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 despite the meaning calling for
> them, or one of a very small number of other cases.
Another case is the rule of "never" putting a type 7 suffix on a verb
with *-jaj.* (Except he has. Does that mean the rule can be ignored
whenever you want? No. The rule is the rule, and there is some reason it
didn't get applied to that particular sentence. Error? Figure of speech?
Allowed at night on a Tuesday? We don't know.)
> Anyway, I do think the language in TKD 4.2.7 certainly suggests that
> using the aspect markers is a good thing to do, but I’ve seen a lot of
> (non-canon) usage that seems consistent with a looser, more “optional”
> view of the suffixes than the one you promote. I haven’t yet studied
> the canon sufficiently to see if the same holds true in canon.
Canon nearly completely supports my interpretation. Most of what Okrand
has translated has no need for perfective, being proverbs, descriptions
of objects, and storytelling. When he does need perfective, it's usually
for the speech of people talking about completed events or the
background of people or objects, and he uses it fairly consistently.
You'd be hard-pressed to find a verb that really ought to be perfective
that isn't. And I'll bet most of those you do come from his earlier
stuff, when he made more mistakes.
There are violations of the rule: /stuffed tobaj leg/ is *to'baj 'uSHom
lughoDlu'bogh,* without a needed *-pu',* but Okrand has used a lot more
*-lu'pu'bogh* and *-lu'ta'bogh* phrases, and the one other time I know
of when he used a *-lu'bogh* verb, in /paq'batlh, /it was describing
something that wasn't complete, so it didn't need a perfective suffix.
> In particular, the Duolingo course seems to use verbs with no aspect
> markers with English translations in the simple past quite regularly,
> in sentences where it seems like the meaning would indicate a
> completed action. It does seem that at least a few people feel that
> the aspect markers can be left off, so I’d be interested in hearing
> some arguments in favor of such a view as well, if anybody has them.
For decades members of the KLI explained Klingon perfective as meaning
"happens before the time context." I know, I was one of them. Everything
we translated or wrote used (or didn't use) perfective that way. The
trouble is, it's wrong. "Before the time context" is tense, not aspect.
When you describe /when/ something happened, instead of the /way/ it
happened, that's tense. And Klingon doesn't have morphological tense.
The old explanation completely failed to explain canonical phrases like
*loSmaH bej jIboghpu'*/I was born forty years ago./ We had to twist
ourselves into pretzels, saying, well, I wasn't born /exactly/ forty
years ago, so as of forty years ago I had already been born. Which is a
useless and pointless thing to say to give your age, since as of
thirty-nine years ago I had also already been born, and so on. This
particular phrase was the first time I doubted the traditional wisdom of
the meaning of Klingon perfective, and I've been studying it ever since.
As for Duolingo, it carries no especial "correctness." It was created by
people on this list, indeed probably reading this message.
>
>> The "usually" is just part of Okrand's usual bit about the dictionary
>> being only a basic sketch of the language.
>>
>
> Which in turn is probably because he didn’t want to pin things down in
> too fine detail, to leave some flexibility for future work on the
> language.
I don't think he expected there to be future work on the language when
he wrote that. He expected the book to sit on the shelves of some
Trekkies, and they might learn a few phrases. He didn't pin it down
because it would have been boring to put in the book, and verisimilitude
demanded he make it seem like the language wasn't well-understood
anyway. So all the given rules are wibbly, but they're generally true.
--
SuStel
http://trimboli.name
--------------08F23F6AA0638FC86911D966
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">
<p>Damn. I lost the whole message I had written in response to
this. I'll give you the slightly shorter version.<br>
</p>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/25/2019 8:40 PM, Daniel Dadap
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:F8D468FD-4398-48BA-BD2F-43A1190D1DB0@dadap.net">
<div class="moz-text-html" lang="x-unicode">Okay. It probably
does, and I’ll personally consider using aspect markers when the
meaning calls for them a best, most correct, practice, but I’m
still not totally convinced that it’s definitely, 100% true.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Not 100% true. Just "usually" true. True enough that you should
accept it as true, and take note when Okrand himself violates it.</p>
<p>To put it another way: if you can leave off a type 7 suffix
whenever you want, what is the point of the text that says it's
"usually" needed? Certainly it's not giving you a grammatical
quota. ("You left off five out of your last ten aspect suffixes.
Prepare to die!")<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:F8D468FD-4398-48BA-BD2F-43A1190D1DB0@dadap.net">
<div class="moz-text-html" lang="x-unicode"> Just the mere fact
that a verb taking a sentence as an object can’t have a type 7
suffix (but probably can have a perfective or imperfective
meaning) 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 despite the meaning
calling for them, or one of a very small number of other cases.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Another case is the rule of "never" putting a type 7 suffix on a
verb with <b>-jaj.</b> (Except he has. Does that mean the rule
can be ignored whenever you want? No. The rule is the rule, and
there is some reason it didn't get applied to that particular
sentence. Error? Figure of speech? Allowed at night on a Tuesday?
We don't know.)<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:F8D468FD-4398-48BA-BD2F-43A1190D1DB0@dadap.net">
<div class="moz-text-html" lang="x-unicode">
<div>Anyway, I do think the language in TKD 4.2.7 certainly
suggests that using the aspect markers is a good thing to do,
but I’ve seen a lot of (non-canon) usage that seems consistent
with a looser, more “optional” view of the suffixes than the
one you promote. I haven’t yet studied the canon sufficiently
to see if the same holds true in canon.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Canon nearly completely supports my interpretation. Most of what
Okrand has translated has no need for perfective, being proverbs,
descriptions of objects, and storytelling. When he does need
perfective, it's usually for the speech of people talking about
completed events or the background of people or objects, and he
uses it fairly consistently. You'd be hard-pressed to find a verb
that really ought to be perfective that isn't. And I'll bet most
of those you do come from his earlier stuff, when he made more
mistakes.<br>
</p>
<p>There are violations of the rule: <i>stuffed tobaj leg</i> is <b>to'baj
'uSHom lughoDlu'bogh,</b> without a needed <b>-pu',</b> but
Okrand has used a lot more <b>-lu'pu'bogh</b> and <b>-lu'ta'bogh</b>
phrases, and the one other time I know of when he used a <b>-lu'bogh</b>
verb, in <i>paq'batlh, </i>it was describing something that
wasn't complete, so it didn't need a perfective suffix.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:F8D468FD-4398-48BA-BD2F-43A1190D1DB0@dadap.net">
<div class="moz-text-html" lang="x-unicode">
<div>In particular, the Duolingo course seems to use verbs with
no aspect markers with English translations in the simple past
quite regularly, in sentences where it seems like the meaning
would indicate a completed action. It does seem that at least
a few people feel that the aspect markers can be left off, so
I’d be interested in hearing some arguments in favor of such a
view as well, if anybody has them.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>For decades members of the KLI explained Klingon perfective as
meaning "happens before the time context." I know, I was one of
them. Everything we translated or wrote used (or didn't use)
perfective that way. The trouble is, it's wrong. "Before the time
context" is tense, not aspect. When you describe <i>when</i>
something happened, instead of the <i>way</i> it happened, that's
tense. And Klingon doesn't have morphological tense.</p>
<p>The old explanation completely failed to explain canonical
phrases like <b>loSmaH bej jIboghpu'</b><i> I was born forty
years ago.</i> We had to twist ourselves into pretzels, saying,
well, I wasn't born <i>exactly</i> forty years ago, so as of
forty years ago I had already been born. Which is a useless and
pointless thing to say to give your age, since as of thirty-nine
years ago I had also already been born, and so on. This particular
phrase was the first time I doubted the traditional wisdom of the
meaning of Klingon perfective, and I've been studying it ever
since.</p>
<p>As for Duolingo, it carries no especial "correctness." It was
created by people on this list, indeed probably reading this
message.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:F8D468FD-4398-48BA-BD2F-43A1190D1DB0@dadap.net">
<div class="moz-text-html" lang="x-unicode"><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<p>The "usually" is just part of Okrand's usual bit about
the dictionary being only a basic sketch of the language.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<div>Which in turn is probably because he didn’t want to pin
things down in too fine detail, to leave some flexibility for
future work on the language.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I don't think he expected there to be future work on the language
when he wrote that. He expected the book to sit on the shelves of
some Trekkies, and they might learn a few phrases. He didn't pin
it down because it would have been boring to put in the book, and
verisimilitude demanded he make it seem like the language wasn't
well-understood anyway. So all the given rules are wibbly, but
they're generally true.<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>
--------------08F23F6AA0638FC86911D966--
--===============7888990976250583994==
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
--===============7888990976250583994==--
