[111958] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Using -ta' during -taHvIS
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Daniel Dadap)
Tue Feb 26 09:20:14 2019
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
From: Daniel Dadap <daniel@dadap.net>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 08:20:01 -0600
In-Reply-To: <CA+7zAmPRd9E6gbx5WsR_HEy_sUJssGVPDsVosgfYwqSSMz27LQ@mail.gmail.com>
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
--===============6760060472391894681==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary=Apple-Mail-D5F7E9B9-F9E2-4486-84D6-EE26D3309CD8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
--Apple-Mail-D5F7E9B9-F9E2-4486-84D6-EE26D3309CD8
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> On Feb 26, 2019, at 04:48, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
>=20
>=20
>> On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 at 11:32, Lieven L. Litaer <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
>> Am 26.02.2019 um 10:35 schrieb De'vID:>=20
>> > The sentence used to introduce this restriction in TKD is: {yaS qIppu'=20=
>> > 'e' vIlegh}.
>> >=20
>> > This sentence didn't appear in Star Trek III, but was something with=20=
>> > this grammar actually spoken in the movie which forced Okrand to make=20=
>> > this restriction?=20
>>=20
>> Yes: {qama'pu' jonta' neH}
>>=20
>=20
> Oh, of course, the one sentence that literally explains most of the weird a=
rbitrary decisions made in TKD.
If that turns out to be true (that {qama'pu' jonta' neH} gave us not only Cl=
ipped Klingon, {-pu'} as a plural marker for beings capable of speech, {-ta'=
} as an aspect marker for completed intentional actions, {neH} as a verb, an=
d the special rule that {neH} doesn=E2=80=99t use the pronoun {'e'} when tak=
ing a sentence as its object, but *also* the rule forbidding aspect markers o=
n a verb that takes a sentence as its object), then that, more than anything=
, convinces me that the aspect markers truly are non-optional. The sentence i=
s already clearly clipped Klingon (the verbs should have been {vIjonta'} or m=
aybe {DIjonta'} and {vIneH} otherwise), and Okrand could have very easily ex=
plained the missing {'e'} and {-pu'} away as being because the sentence was a=
lready clipped, but he chose not to do so.
{qama'pu' jonta' neH} really is the gift that keeps on giving=E2=80=A6
As for the rule resolving possible conflicts in aspect between a verb and it=
s object sentence, perhaps that=E2=80=99s the reason, but I don=E2=80=99t se=
e why the aspect of a verb taking an SAO and the verb in its SAO have to agr=
ee in the first place. If I say (ungrammatically) {wa'leS SIStaH 'e' vI'aqpu=
'} =E2=80=9CI have predicted that it will be continuously raining tomorrow=E2=
=80=9D, in both Klingon and English the prediction is completed and the rain=
ing is continuous, and there doesn=E2=80=99t seem to be any reason grounded i=
n laws of nature why the aspect of these two verbs must agree. Even with {qa=
ma'pu' (vI)jonta' (vI)neH}, there=E2=80=99s no reason the wanting has to be c=
ompleted. {Qugh HoD} could still not-completed-want to capture prisoners, ev=
en if the opportunity to do so is apparently no longer available.
If I have to just say {wa'leS SIStaH 'e' vI'aq} or {wa'leS SIS 'e' vI'aq} in=
stead, since verbs taking SAO can=E2=80=99t also have a VS7, then the inform=
ation that {'aq} is completed has been lost, and if it can be lost here, why=
not somewhere else? Certainly, the aspect of the verb taking the SAO doesn=E2=
=80=99t come from the verb in the SAO, since {wa'leS SISpu' 'e' vI'aq} sound=
s like the prediction is that it will stop raining tomorrow, when what I rea=
lly want to say is that I finished predicting that it will rain tomorrow. (I=
=E2=80=99m now fairly convinced that you do indeed need to use aspect marker=
s when the meaning calls for them, so I=E2=80=99m not holding this up as an a=
rgument to say they you don=E2=80=99t; I=E2=80=99m just trying to understand=
the ramifications of this restriction more fully.)
As somebody who is familiar, to varying levels of proficiency, with language=
s that indicate aspect but not tense, tense but not aspect, and both tense a=
nd aspect, I=E2=80=99m aware that dropping aspect markers when they would ot=
herwise be indicated, in languages that mark aspect, produces speech that se=
ems as off as =E2=80=9CI go to the store=E2=80=9D (when I in fact went to th=
e store) does in English, but just because that=E2=80=99s true for other lan=
guages that mark aspect that I=E2=80=99m familiar with, I didn=E2=80=99t tak=
e that to mean that it=E2=80=99s necessarily true for Klingon as well. I do m=
ake an effort not to allow my intuitions from other languages creep into my u=
nderstanding of new languages I learn, although to a certain extent it=E2=80=
=99s unavoidable, I suppose. It=E2=80=99s hard to say for sure, but I think m=
y personal impression of the aspect markers being mostly optional was mainly=
informed by being exposed to usage of non-aspect-marked verbs to indicate w=
hat appeared to be completed actions (problably mostly from Duolingo) early o=
n when studying the language, which fed into and reinforced my (erroneous, a=
s SuStel points out) view of Klingon as communicating =E2=80=9Cno more, no l=
ess=E2=80=9D than necessary.=
--Apple-Mail-D5F7E9B9-F9E2-4486-84D6-EE26D3309CD8
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 26, 2019, at 04:48, De'vID <<a href=3D"mai=
lto:de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com">de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br><=
/div><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D=
"ltr"><br></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gma=
il_attr">On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 at 11:32, Lieven L. Litaer <<a href=3D"mailt=
o:levinius@gmx.de">levinius@gmx.de</a>> wrote:<br></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">Am 26.02.2019 um 10:35 schrieb De'vID:>&n=
bsp;<br>
> The sentence used to introduce this restriction in TKD is: {yaS qIppu' <=
br>
> 'e' vIlegh}.<br>
> <br>
> This sentence didn't appear in Star Trek III, but was something with <b=
r>
> this grammar actually spoken in the movie which forced Okrand to make <=
br>
> this restriction? <br>
<br>
Yes: {qama'pu' jonta' neH}<br><br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Oh, of co=
urse, the one sentence that literally explains most of the weird arbitrary d=
ecisions made in TKD.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><di=
v><br></div>If that turns out to be true (that {qama'pu' jonta' neH} gave us=
not only Clipped Klingon, {-pu'} as a plural marker for beings capable of s=
peech, {-ta'} as an aspect marker for completed intentional actions, {neH} a=
s a verb, and the special rule that {neH} doesn=E2=80=99t use the pronoun {'=
e'} when taking a sentence as its object, but *also* the rule forbidding asp=
ect markers on a verb that takes a sentence as its object), then that, more t=
han anything, convinces me that the aspect markers truly are non-optional. T=
he sentence is already clearly clipped Klingon (the verbs should have been {=
vIjonta'} or maybe {DIjonta'} and {vIneH} otherwise), and Okrand could have v=
ery easily explained the missing {'e'} and {-pu'} away as being because the s=
entence was already clipped, but he chose not to do so.<div><br></div><div>{=
qama'pu' jonta' neH} really is the gift that keeps on giving=E2=80=A6<br><di=
v><br></div><div>As for the rule resolving possible conflicts in aspect betw=
een a verb and its object sentence, perhaps that=E2=80=99s the reason, but I=
don=E2=80=99t see why the aspect of a verb taking an SAO and the verb in it=
s SAO have to agree in the first place. If I say (ungrammatically) {wa'leS S=
IStaH 'e' vI'aqpu'} =E2=80=9CI have predicted that it will be continuously r=
aining tomorrow=E2=80=9D, in both Klingon and English the prediction is comp=
leted and the raining is continuous, and there doesn=E2=80=99t seem to be an=
y reason grounded in laws of nature why the aspect of these two verbs must a=
gree. Even with {qama'pu' (vI)jonta' (vI)neH}, there=E2=80=99s no reason the=
wanting has to be completed. {Qugh HoD} could still not-completed-want to c=
apture prisoners, even if the opportunity to do so is apparently no longer a=
vailable.</div><div><br></div><div>If I have to just say {wa'leS SIStaH 'e' v=
I'aq} or {wa'leS SIS 'e' vI'aq} instead, since verbs taking SAO can=E2=80=99=
t also have a VS7, then the information that {'aq} is completed has been los=
t, and if it can be lost here, why not somewhere else? Certainly, the aspect=
of the verb taking the SAO doesn=E2=80=99t come from the verb in the SAO, s=
ince {wa'leS SISpu' 'e' vI'aq} sounds like the prediction is that it will st=
op raining tomorrow, when what I really want to say is that I finished predi=
cting that it will rain tomorrow. (I=E2=80=99m now fairly convinced that you=
do indeed need to use aspect markers when the meaning calls for them, so I=E2=
=80=99m not holding this up as an argument to say they you don=E2=80=99t; I=E2=
=80=99m just trying to understand the ramifications of this restriction more=
fully.)</div><div><br></div><div>As somebody who is familiar, to varying le=
vels of proficiency, with languages that indicate aspect but not tense, tens=
e but not aspect, and both tense and aspect, I=E2=80=99m aware that dropping=
aspect markers when they would otherwise be indicated, in languages that ma=
rk aspect, produces speech that seems as off as =E2=80=9CI go to the store=E2=
=80=9D (when I in fact went to the store) does in English, but just because t=
hat=E2=80=99s true for other languages that mark aspect that I=E2=80=99m fam=
iliar with, I didn=E2=80=99t take that to mean that it=E2=80=99s necessarily=
true for Klingon as well. I do make an effort not to allow my intuitions fr=
om other languages creep into my understanding of new languages I learn, alt=
hough to a certain extent it=E2=80=99s unavoidable, I suppose. It=E2=80=99s h=
ard to say for sure, but I think my personal impression of the aspect marker=
s being mostly optional was mainly informed by being exposed to usage of non=
-aspect-marked verbs to indicate what appeared to be completed actions (prob=
lably mostly from Duolingo) early on when studying the language, which fed i=
nto and reinforced my (erroneous, as SuStel points out) view of Klingon as c=
ommunicating =E2=80=9Cno more, no less=E2=80=9D than necessary.</div></div><=
/body></html>=
--Apple-Mail-D5F7E9B9-F9E2-4486-84D6-EE26D3309CD8--
--===============6760060472391894681==
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
--===============6760060472391894681==--
