[111954] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Using -ta' during -taHvIS
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (De'vID)
Tue Feb 26 04:35:53 2019
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
In-Reply-To: <36F0326D-911C-4B54-8069-83CDF2621CF0@dadap.net>
From: "De'vID" <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 10:35:38 +0100
To: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
--===============4077229172602676598==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004ca7840582c8c8b4"
--0000000000004ca7840582c8c8b4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 at 23:45, Daniel Dadap <daniel@dadap.net> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 25, 2019, at 15:30, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> I=E2=80=99ve seen you make this claim a number of times, but without prov=
iding a
> reference. Could you point out where aspect suffixes are described as
> non-optional? I=E2=80=99ve tried looking for it myself, and the closest t=
hing I=E2=80=99ve
> found is in TKD 4.2.7 which says:
>
> > Klingon does not express tenses (past, present, future). These ideas
> come across from context or other words in the sentence (such as {wa'leS}
> <tomorrow>). The language does, however, indicate aspect: whether an acti=
on
> is completed or not yet completed, and whether an action is a single even=
t
> or a continuing one.
> >
> > The absence of a Type 7 suffix usually means that the action is not
> completed and is not continuous (that is, it is not one of the things
> indicated by the Type 7 suffixes). Verbs with no Type 7 suffix are
> translated by the English simple present tense.
>
> I don=E2=80=99t take that to mean that a verb must necessarily take the
> appropriate Type 7 suffix it it happens to describe an action that is
> completed or continuous. The =E2=80=9Cusually=E2=80=9D seems to leave roo=
m for the omission
> of Type 7 suffixes under unspecified circumstances.
It's interesting that aspect and tense are things that languages can have,
but some languages have one and not the other, because they're handled in
similar ways in natural languages. Imagine the analogous situation where I
told you that the absence of something indicating past or future tense
usually means that the verb is in the present tense. This is a (very
simplified) version of how English and most Indo-European languages work.
There *are* situations where a verb is in the present tense but describes
an action in the past or future, such as if you're telling a story where
the narrative tense is present but it actually takes place in the past (or
future), but these are special cases. The word "usually" indicates that
something is a rule, but that there are (i.e., "unusual") exceptions.
> I also don=E2=80=99t think that the sentence about verbs with no Type 7 s=
uffix
> being translated by the English simple present tense means that they alwa=
ys
> have to be translated that way. That could just be a description of the
> translating convention used in the dictionary or in the examples that
> immediately follow that description.
>
As someone who natively speaks one language with tense and not aspect
(English) and another with aspect and not tense (Cantonese Chinese), I'll
say that the fact that each language requires the expression of something
that the other doesn't just means that something has to get dropped when
going from one to the other. It does *not* mean that the thing that's
frequently dropped in translation is *optional* in the original language.
One common stereotype Americans have of (typically older) Chinese people
speaking English is that they drop tense, so they would say things like "I
go [instead of went] store yesterday". The stereotype also exists in the
other direction: Chinese people think Americans and other native English
speakers learning Chinese drop aspect, so they say things like "I go
[instead of go-completed] store yesterday". I don't know how much
experience you've had teaching English to Chinese speakers (or vice versa),
but it genuinely is difficult to convince people not to forget to include
the thing that normally isn't included in their native language. I mean,
how important can tense be if it's *never* expressed in my own language?
And yet, if you drop tense in English, it just sounds wrong to someone who
speaks the language.
I see something similar happening with Klingon where people try to convince
themselves that the rules doesn't actually say what it says, because it
goes against their *English*-based intuition of what needs to be expressed
in a sentence. People claim that it's okay to omit aspect markers if what
they indicate isn't "important". But what's important in a language isn't
entirely subjective, but rather governed by the rules of the language
itself. Objectively, tense isn't important in English. There have been
proposals for a reformed simplified English which drop all sorts of things
like tense. And clearly, since other natural languages don't express tense,
English doesn't need to, either. And yet "usually" when you omit tense when
a verb should actually be in past or future tense, it's just wrong.
> It seems a bit strange to me that plural markers would be optional for
> things which context makes clear are definitely plural (and even for thin=
gs
> where context leaves things ambiguous) but aspect markers would not be
> optional.
But there's a logical difference between them. Plural markers are optional
because you can otherwise be unambiguous, either by using prefixes, or when
that is insufficient, by using a number such as {wa'}. The plural
indicators in Klingon are exhaustive: things are either singular or plural
(there are no nulls, or duals, or other, as some languages have). The
Klingon aspect system uses the absence of aspect markers to indicate a
particular range of aspect (namely, actions which are neither completed nor
continuous), so the aspect markers are *not* exhaustive. If aspect markers
were optional when the action is completed or continuous, it would leave
the language with no way to unambiguously specify an action that is
neither. It would be like if English were to treat the absence of tense as
optionally indicating future or past: it would leave the language no way to
unambiguously express present tense. (If aspect markers were optional in
Klingon, then it would need an explicit aspect marker for "not completed
and not continuous".)
> Then again, Klingon was intentionally designed to be strange.
While Klingon is strangely put together, most parts of it taken in
isolation actually exist in natural Terran languages. The way it handles
aspect is consistent with how it's done in natural languages like Chinese
(which has many more aspects than Klingon expresses).
> Also, the fact that a verb can=E2=80=99t take an aspect marker when it ta=
kes a
> sentence as its object means that there are definitely cases where the
> absence of an aspect marker is required, even if the verb exists in a
> context that otherwise indicates a completed or continuous aspect. Perhap=
s
> the cases that fall outside of the =E2=80=9Cusually=E2=80=9D in the secon=
d paragraph quoted
> above fall entirely within the confines of =E2=80=9Cverbs taking sentence=
s as
> objects=E2=80=9D, but it doesn=E2=80=99t quite add up to =E2=80=9Caspect =
markers must be used for
> all completed or continuous actions=E2=80=9D for me.
>
The sentence used to introduce this restriction in TKD is: {yaS qIppu' 'e'
vIlegh}.
This sentence didn't appear in Star Trek III, but was something with this
grammar actually spoken in the movie which forced Okrand to make this
restriction? Otherwise, I think the restriction was put in place to prevent
contradictory aspects between the two sentences in a SAO construction.
There are other ways of doing that, but outright banning aspect on the
second sentence accomplishes that goal (even if it's kind of overkill).
In Chinese, when you have the analogous thing to a SAO construction,
certain combinations of aspect markers become impossible. Maybe Okrand just
wanted to keep things simpler in Klingon by banning them outright instead
of specifying the legal combinations, but he apparently forgot the rule
himself while writing the text for the SkyBox cards:
{juHqo'Daq vaS'a' tu'lu'. ngoch luchermeH 'ej wo' San luwuqmeH pa' ghom
tlhIngan yejquv DevwI'pu'. DaH che' ghawran. yejquv DevwI' moj ghawran 'e'
wuqta' cho' 'oDwI' Dapu'bogh janluq pIqarD HoD.}
"On the Homeworld, there is a great hall where the leaders of the Klingon
High Council meet to determine policy and decide upon the fate of the
Empire. Gowron currently presides, named leader of the High Council by
Captain Jean-Luc Picard, who was acting as Arbiter of Succession."
(SkyBox card #25)
{moj 'e' wuqta'} contradicts the rule stated in TKD 6.2.5.
{DuraS tuq tlhIngan yejquv patlh luDub 'e' reH lunIDtaH DuraS be'nI'pu'
lurSa' be'etor je. ngoQvam luchavmeH ghawran maghpu' be'nI'pu'. woQ
luSuqmeH jIjpu' chaH romuluSngan'e' je.}
"The sisters of the House of Duras, Lursa and B'Etor, are constantly
seeking a higher standing for the House of Duras within the Klingon High
Council. To this end, the sisters have acted against Gowron, going as far
as to work with Romulan factions in order to gain power."
(SkyBox card #26)
Same for {luDub 'e' lunIDtaH}.
--=20
De'vID
--0000000000004ca7840582c8c8b4
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div di=
r=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><br></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div di=
r=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 at 23:45, Daniel Dadap &=
lt;<a href=3D"mailto:daniel@dadap.net">daniel@dadap.net</a>> wrote:<br><=
/div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;bo=
rder-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br>
> On Feb 25, 2019, at 15:30, SuStel <<a href=3D"mailto:sustel@trimbol=
i.name" target=3D"_blank">sustel@trimboli.name</a>> wrote:<br>
> <br>
> Incorrect. Omitting a type 7 suffix on a verb explicitly means the act=
ion is not continuous and not perfective. It doesn't add optional meani=
ng; if you are describing a completed action, you need a perfective suffix =
on it.<br>
<br>
I=E2=80=99ve seen you make this claim a number of times, but without provid=
ing a reference. Could you point out where aspect suffixes are described as=
non-optional? I=E2=80=99ve tried looking for it myself, and the closest th=
ing I=E2=80=99ve found is in TKD 4.2.7 which says:<br>
<br>
> Klingon does not express tenses (past, present, future). These ideas c=
ome across from context or other words in the sentence (such as {wa'leS=
} <tomorrow>). The language does, however, indicate aspect: whether a=
n action is completed or not yet completed, and whether an action is a sing=
le event or a continuing one.<br>
> <br>
> The absence of a Type 7 suffix usually means that the action is not co=
mpleted and is not continuous (that is, it is not one of the things indicat=
ed by the Type 7 suffixes). Verbs with no Type 7 suffix are translated by t=
he English simple present tense.<br>
<br>
I don=E2=80=99t take that to mean that a verb must necessarily take the app=
ropriate Type 7 suffix it it happens to describe an action that is complete=
d or continuous. The =E2=80=9Cusually=E2=80=9D seems to leave room for the =
omission of Type 7 suffixes under unspecified circumstances.</blockquote><d=
iv><br></div><div>It's interesting that aspect and tense are things tha=
t languages can have, but some languages have one and not the other, becaus=
e they're handled in similar ways in natural languages. Imagine the ana=
logous situation where I told you that the absence of something indicating =
past or future tense usually means that the verb is in the present tense. T=
his is a (very simplified) version of how English and most Indo-European la=
nguages work. There *are* situations where a verb is in the present tense b=
ut describes an action in the past or future, such as if you're telling=
a story where the narrative tense is present but it actually takes place i=
n the past (or future), but these are special cases. The word "usually=
" indicates that something is a rule, but that there are (i.e., "=
unusual") exceptions.</div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail=
_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204=
,204);padding-left:1ex"> I also don=E2=80=99t think that the sentence about=
verbs with no Type 7 suffix being translated by the English simple present=
tense means that they always have to be translated that way. That could ju=
st be a description of the translating convention used in the dictionary or=
in the examples that immediately follow that description.<br></blockquote>=
<div><br></div><div>As someone who natively speaks one language with tense =
and not aspect (English)=C2=A0and another with aspect and not tense (Canton=
ese Chinese), I'll say that the fact that each language requires the ex=
pression of something that the other doesn't just means that something =
has to get dropped when going from one to the other. It does *not* mean tha=
t the thing that's frequently dropped in translation is *optional* in t=
he original language.</div><div><br></div><div>One common stereotype Americ=
ans have of (typically older) Chinese people speaking English is that they =
drop tense, so they would say things like "I go [instead of went] stor=
e yesterday". The stereotype also exists in the other direction: Chine=
se people think Americans and other native English speakers learning Chines=
e drop aspect, so they say things like "I go [instead of go-completed]=
store yesterday". I don't know how much experience you've had=
teaching English to Chinese speakers (or vice versa), but it genuinely is =
difficult to convince people not to forget to include the thing that normal=
ly isn't included in their native language. I mean, how important can t=
ense be if it's *never* expressed in my own language? And yet, if you d=
rop tense in English, it just sounds wrong to someone who speaks the langua=
ge.</div><div><br></div><div>I see something similar happening with Klingon=
where people try to convince themselves that the rules doesn't actuall=
y say what it says, because it goes against their *English*-based intuition=
of what needs to be expressed in a sentence. People claim that it's ok=
ay to omit aspect markers if what they indicate isn't "important&q=
uot;. But what's important in a language isn't entirely subjective,=
but rather governed by the rules of the language itself. Objectively, tens=
e isn't important in English. There have been proposals for a reformed =
simplified English which drop all sorts of things like tense. And clearly, =
since other natural languages don't express tense, English doesn't =
need to, either. And yet "usually" when you omit tense when a ver=
b should actually be in past or future tense, it's just wrong.</div><di=
v>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px=
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
It seems a bit strange to me that plural markers would be optional for thin=
gs which context makes clear are definitely plural (and even for things whe=
re context leaves things ambiguous) but aspect markers would not be optiona=
l. </blockquote><div><br></div><div>But there's a logical difference be=
tween them. Plural markers are optional because you can otherwise be unambi=
guous, either by using prefixes, or when that is insufficient, by using a n=
umber such as {wa'}. The plural indicators in Klingon are exhaustive: t=
hings are either singular or plural (there are no nulls, or duals, or other=
, as some languages have). The Klingon aspect system uses the absence of as=
pect markers to indicate a particular range of aspect (namely, actions whic=
h are neither completed nor continuous), so the aspect markers are *not* ex=
haustive. If aspect markers were optional when the action is completed or c=
ontinuous, it would leave the language with no way to unambiguously specify=
an action that is neither. It would be like if English were to treat the a=
bsence of tense as optionally indicating future or past: it would leave the=
language no way to unambiguously express present tense. (If aspect markers=
were optional in Klingon, then it would need an explicit aspect marker for=
"not completed and not continuous".)</div><div>=C2=A0</div><bloc=
kquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:=
1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Then again, Klingon was intent=
ionally designed to be strange. </blockquote><div><br></div><div>While Klin=
gon is strangely put together, most parts of it taken in isolation actually=
exist in natural Terran languages. The way it handles aspect is consistent=
with how it's done in natural languages like Chinese (which has many m=
ore aspects than Klingon expresses).</div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote clas=
s=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid r=
gb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Also, the fact that a verb can=E2=80=99t =
take an aspect marker when it takes a sentence as its object means that the=
re are definitely cases where the absence of an aspect marker is required, =
even if the verb exists in a context that otherwise indicates a completed o=
r continuous aspect. Perhaps the cases that fall outside of the =E2=80=9Cus=
ually=E2=80=9D in the second paragraph quoted above fall entirely within th=
e confines of =E2=80=9Cverbs taking sentences as objects=E2=80=9D, but it d=
oesn=E2=80=99t quite add up to =E2=80=9Caspect markers must be used for all=
completed or continuous actions=E2=80=9D for me.<br></blockquote><div><br>=
</div><div>The sentence used to introduce this restriction in TKD is: {yaS =
qIppu' 'e' vIlegh}.</div><div><br></div><div>This sentence didn=
't appear in Star Trek III, but was something with this grammar actuall=
y spoken in the movie which forced Okrand to make this restriction? Otherwi=
se, I think the restriction was put in place to prevent contradictory aspec=
ts between the two sentences in a SAO construction. There are other ways of=
doing that, but outright banning aspect on the second sentence accomplishe=
s that goal (even if it's kind of overkill).=C2=A0</div><div><br></div>=
<div>In Chinese, when you have the analogous thing to a SAO construction, c=
ertain combinations of aspect markers become impossible. Maybe Okrand just =
wanted to keep things simpler in Klingon by banning them outright instead o=
f specifying the legal combinations, but he apparently forgot the rule hims=
elf while writing the text for the SkyBox cards:</div><div><div class=3D"gm=
ail_quote"><div><br class=3D"gmail-Apple-interchange-newline">{juHqo'Da=
q vaS'a' tu'lu'. ngoch luchermeH 'ej wo' San luwuqm=
eH pa' ghom tlhIngan yejquv DevwI'pu'. DaH che' ghawran. ye=
jquv DevwI' moj ghawran 'e' wuqta' cho' 'oDwI' =
Dapu'bogh janluq pIqarD HoD.}</div><div>"On the Homeworld, there i=
s a great hall where the leaders of the Klingon High Council meet to determ=
ine policy and decide upon the fate of the Empire. Gowron currently preside=
s, named leader of the High Council by Captain Jean-Luc Picard, who was act=
ing as Arbiter of Succession."<br></div></div><div>(SkyBox card #25)</=
div><br class=3D"gmail-Apple-interchange-newline"></div><div>{moj 'e=
9; wuqta'} contradicts the rule stated in TKD 6.2.5.</div><div><br></di=
v><div>{DuraS tuq tlhIngan yejquv patlh luDub 'e' reH lunIDtaH Dura=
S be'nI'pu' lurSa' be'etor je. ngoQvam luchavmeH ghawra=
n maghpu' be'nI'pu'. woQ luSuqmeH jIjpu' chaH romuluSng=
an'e' je.}</div><div>"The sisters of the House of Duras, Lursa=
and B'Etor, are constantly seeking a higher standing for the House of =
Duras within the Klingon High Council. To this end, the sisters have acted =
against Gowron, going as far as to work with Romulan factions in order to g=
ain power."</div><div>(SkyBox card #26)</div><div><br></div><div>Same =
for {luDub 'e' lunIDtaH}.</div><div><br></div></div>-- <br><div dir=
=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_signature">De'vID</div></div></div></div></div>=
</div>
--0000000000004ca7840582c8c8b4--
--===============4077229172602676598==
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
--===============4077229172602676598==--
