[89168] in tlhIngan-Hol
RE: nuq bop bom: 'ay' wa'
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Robyn Stewart)
Tue Aug 23 14:21:30 2011
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 11:08:52 -0700
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
From: Robyn Stewart <robyn@flyingstart.ca>
In-Reply-To: <1314121610.8024.YahooMailClassic@web82606.mail.mud.yahoo.c
om>
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Please let me know if you think 'ay' wejDIch uses too many aspect suffixes.
Holmaj SovvaD che'ron mojchugh lut vIparHa'. vIcherghlaHbej 'ej
bechbe' chu'wI' mIS. ben chu'wI'pu' DIlughmoHtaHmo' not chutHom
DIlIj. 'a DaH wIyajchuqlaHmo' chaq wIpojchuqbe'taH.
Also I think I need to check in my story archive to see if I have
ever let a major character get through a story without a hand or arm
injury. jInaS.
At 10:46 23/08/2011, you wrote:
>--- On Tue, 8/23/11, David Trimboli <david@trimboli.name> wrote:
>Qov:
> > > I think I need some more help with this. I generally
> > don't put an
> > > aspect suffix on a verb until I need to contrast it
> > with other action
> > > in the paragraph. Are you saying that any verb must
> > have an aspect
> > > suffix? I totally don't remember that. Could you
> > point me at the
> > > rule? Or is it just that those particular sentences
> > are confusing
> > > because you can't tell the aspect of the action?
> >
> > This is a rule that has largely been ignored by even the
> > most veteran of
> > Klingon speakers. TKD 4.2.7:
> >
> > 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).
> >
> > So if {meHDaq ba' vajar HoD}, it means Vajar has not
> > completed sitting
> > (does {ba'} mean "be seated" or "sit down" or both?), and
> > is not sitting
> > continuously. You might not use the suffix if for instance
> > you wanted to
> > discuss the habits of Vajar: {rut meHDaq ba' vajar HoD}.
> > But in your
> > story you're describing a definite instance of Vajar
> > sitting, which is
> > probably either completed or continuous (I expect it's
> > {-taH}, given the
> > context).
> >
>
>I'm going to have to disagree here. I know that the section of TKD
>you quote can be read to imply that pretty much every verb has to
>have a Type 7 suffix, but I don't buy it. For one thing, what would
>you really use a non-aspect suffix verb for, in that case, except in
>the most contrived situations? For another, Okrand himself doesn't
>use the aspect suffixes this way. I always understood this to mean
>that the unaffixed verb was the default, simply describing an
>action, no special attention paid to aspect, and that it took an
>aspect suffix only when one had to call special attention to the
>degree of completion or continuity.
>
>I agree that {ba'taH} is probably appropriate in that particular
>instance, since Qov is setting a scene, but I don't think she needs
>to explicitly mark the aspect of most of her verbs.
>
>-- ter'eS
