[92187] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Type 7 verb suffixes (was Re: nuq bop bom: 'ay'
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Trimboli)
Mon Feb 13 09:33:19 2012
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 09:32:59 -0500
From: David Trimboli <david@trimboli.name>
To: tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
In-Reply-To: <CA+7zAmOeU_mbFviFpe4Bh7wSESJLNoJMsTn1h231bAQfSC62EA@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
On 2/11/2012 2:54 AM, De'vID jonpIn wrote:
> SuStel:
> > It's not "to eat," it's the exact sentence "I ate." That sentence,
> and no other forms, inflections, or words.
> >
> > Prince: Did you take a bite out of this apple?
> > Snow White: Yes, I ate.
> >
> > She wouldn't say that!
>
> loDHomvaD raSDaq naH jengva' lan SoSDaj. jatlh SoS, <DaH Qu'Hom
> vIchavmeH jImej. jIcheghDI' naH DaSopnISta'.>
That's perfect tense, not perfective aspect. "You need to have eaten it" =
means eating it at some point prior to "when I return." Points prior are =
tense, not aspect. Perfective refers to "completed," not "prior."
If I were writing that sentence, I'd write {jIcheghpa' naH DaSopnISta'} =
"You need to eat the fruit completely before I return." (I'd actually =
change elements of the whole paragraph.)
> jang loDHom, jatlh, <lu', qaH!>
>
> mejpu'DI' SoS, loQ naH chop loDHom 'ej ghup. cha'logh chop 'ej ghup.
> wejlogh chop 'ej ghup. Soj mumDI' par. nujvo' ratlhwI' tlhIS.
> jengva'vo' veQDaq Soj woD.
>
> chegh SoSDaj. ghaHvaD ghel, <bISop'a'?>
>
> chay' jang loDHom? jatlh, <HIja', jISop.>
>
> jangDI' loDHom, lugh'a'? vIt'a'?
Ah, you've just made my point for me. A child who pulls this trick is =
trying to take advantage of the mother's regular understanding of the =
language. A (naive) mother who hears "I ate the apple" will assume that =
the child ate THE WHOLE APPLE (sans core)=97she believes the sentence to =
be in its normal, perfective sense. This is how it would normally be =
interpreted. The child knows this, but decides that HE is going to think =
of it as being in the perfect tense: that prior to that conversation he =
engaged in the act of eating the apple. He is intentionally forcing an =
unexpected, but not literally incorrect, interpretation of the sentence.
In Klingon he might try a similar trick, but not the same one. He can =
take advantage of the fact that Klingon has no articles. If he says {naH =
vISopta'}, does he mean "I ate the fruit" or "I ate fruit"? If he only =
ate a piece, the latter interpretation is correct but the former is not.
Or, in your example above, the child does not specify WHAT he ate. =
That's another way children try to trick their parents. {bISopta''a'?} =
"Did you finish eating?" {HIja' jISopta' . o O ('ach Hoch'e' vISopbe'ta'!)}
Children twisting grammar to trick their parents aren't the best tests =
of one's grammatical understanding. Try that test with honest adults:
1: naHvam yISop!
2: OMNOMNOM... YEEECCHHHH! PTOOIE!
1: naH DaSopta''a'?
2: ghobe'... 'up!
-- =
SuStel
http://www.trimboli.name/
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
