[93517] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] mutually subordinate clauses?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (lojmIt tI'wI'nuv)
Tue Jun 5 11:46:00 2012
From: lojmIt tI'wI'nuv <lojmitti7wi7nuv@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 11:45:39 -0400
In-Reply-To: <4FCD7A0F.2070804@trimboli.name>
To: tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
--===============0071705667394985877==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_32940762-B4F4-4DB6-97EF-EAB8C83BF2A5"
--Apple-Mail=_32940762-B4F4-4DB6-97EF-EAB8C83BF2A5
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=us-ascii
You are skipping over the word "usually" in your own quote and putting =
more weight on the statement than it can hold. You are loading it with =
words like "required" and "cannot".
So, if I write of my wife and say:
pIj jatlhtaH.
According to you, that's a single episode. Never mind the adverbial. I =
have an aspect marker, therefore I MUST be talking about a single event, =
right? Or if I complain that I generally don't get enough sleep because =
of my bad bed:
QongDaqwIjmo' not jIQongchu'ta'.
Again, you would insist that I'm talking about a specific ocurance.
I am, myself, often tempted to make generalizations about the language =
that just don't hold up. I understand that temptation. Meanwhile, your =
argument isn't working.
pItlh
lojmIt tI'wI'nuv
On Jun 4, 2012, at 11:16 PM, David Trimboli wrote:
> On 6/4/2012 10:23 PM, lojmIt tI'wI' nuv wrote:
>>=20
>> While I think that all the suggestions here are good sentences
>> expressing variations on the originally stated meaning, I can't agree
>> that aspect markers explicitly and exclusively mark the difference
>> between a general tendency of an action to occur and a specific
>> instance of the action occurring. There's just no evidence that I can
>> recall for this in TKD or other canon.
> >
>> It might be kinda cool if it were true, but I doubt it's true.
>>=20
>> More likely, it's like plural suffixes on nouns. Put them in if you
>> want to make a point of marking aspect, but if you leave it out, it's
>> typically not a big deal.
>=20
> "The absence of a Type 7 suffix usually means that the action is not =
completed and not continuous (that is, it is not one of the things =
indicated by the Type 7 suffixes)." (TKD p. 40)
>=20
> If an action is not marked continuous, it is not being described as an =
action progressing in time. If it is not marked perfective, it is not =
being viewed as an action that is a completed whole. Go ahead and try to =
describe an action that actually happened exactly once, without =
describing it as spread out over time or as an entire, indivisible unit.
>=20
> Note that because English blends tense and aspect, you can often get =
different meanings from the same inflections. "I eat meat" can mean that =
you are in the process of eating meat during a single sitting =
(continuous aspect), or it can mean you have a propensity to eat meat =
(no aspect). It cannot mean you start and then finish eating meat during =
a single sitting.
>=20
> Okrand tells us in TKD that the aspect suffixes are *required* if a =
meaning involves aspect. {Ha'DIbaH vISop} *cannot* mean you are in the =
process of eating meat at a single sitting, because it does not have a =
continuous or progress suffix. It *cannot* mean you start and then =
finish eating meat during a single sitting, because it does not have a =
perfective or accomplished suffix. It can mean things like you having a =
propensity to eat meat, or the idea of you eating meat, or that eating =
meat is habitual for you.
>=20
> To repeat: to describe an action that is whole and completed, -pu' or =
-ta' is *required*. They are not optional. To describe an action that is =
an instance of a particular ongoing event, -taH or -lI' is *required*.
>=20
> I describe the lack of a Type 7 suffix as "propensity," because this =
was an excellent explanation of exactly this situation by Stephen Pinker =
in his book THE STUFF OF THOUGHT. But this is just a convenient label; =
such verbs without Type 7 suffixes can also describes verbs that are =
habitual, or verbs that are generically true.
>=20
> Ha'DIbaH vISop
> I have a propensity for eating meat
> I have a habit of eating meat
> it is true that I eat meat
>=20
> Ha'DIbaH vISoptaH
> I am in the process of eating meat during the situation being =
described
>=20
> Ha'DIbaH vISoppu'
> I started and finished eating meat during the situation being =
described
>=20
> And because Klingon does not have tense marked by suffixes, these =
sentences could be talking about the past, present or future. Note that =
"occurred before the time context of the sentence" is perfect *tense*, =
not perfective aspect.
>=20
> So yes, the canon from Okrand is right there in TKD, and it is pretty =
explicit.
>=20
> --=20
> SuStel
> http://www.trimboli.name/
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
> http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
--Apple-Mail=_32940762-B4F4-4DB6-97EF-EAB8C83BF2A5
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
charset=us-ascii
<html><head></head><body style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; =
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; =
"><div>You are skipping over the word "usually" in your own quote and =
putting more weight on the statement than it can hold. You are loading =
it with words like "required" and "cannot".</div><div><br></div><div>So, =
if I write of my wife and say:</div><div><br></div><div>pIj =
jatlhtaH.</div><div><br></div><div>According to you, that's a single =
episode. Never mind the adverbial. I have an aspect marker, therefore I =
MUST be talking about a single event, right? Or if I complain that I =
generally don't get enough sleep because of my bad =
bed:</div><div><br></div><div>QongDaqwIjmo' not =
jIQongchu'ta'.</div><div><br></div><div>Again, you would insist that I'm =
talking about a specific ocurance.</div><div><br></div><div>I am, =
myself, often tempted to make generalizations about the language that =
just don't hold up. I understand that temptation. Meanwhile, your =
argument isn't working.</div><br><div>
<span class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"border-collapse: separate; =
color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; =
font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; =
line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: =
0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: =
0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; =
-webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; =
-webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: =
auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; =
"><div>pItlh</div><div>lojmIt tI'wI'nuv</div><div><br></div></span><br =
class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline">
</div>
<br><div><div>On Jun 4, 2012, at 11:16 PM, David Trimboli =
wrote:</div><br class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote =
type=3D"cite"><div>On 6/4/2012 10:23 PM, lojmIt tI'wI' nuv =
wrote:<br><blockquote type=3D"cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote =
type=3D"cite">While I think that all the suggestions here are good =
sentences<br></blockquote><blockquote type=3D"cite">expressing =
variations on the originally stated meaning, I can't =
agree<br></blockquote><blockquote type=3D"cite">that aspect markers =
explicitly and exclusively mark the =
difference<br></blockquote><blockquote type=3D"cite">between a general =
tendency of an action to occur and a =
specific<br></blockquote><blockquote type=3D"cite">instance of the =
action occurring. There's just no evidence that I =
can<br></blockquote><blockquote type=3D"cite">recall for this in TKD or =
other canon.<br></blockquote>><br><blockquote type=3D"cite">It might =
be kinda cool if it were true, but I doubt it's =
true.<br></blockquote><blockquote =
type=3D"cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type=3D"cite">More likely, =
it's like plural suffixes on nouns. Put them in if =
you<br></blockquote><blockquote type=3D"cite">want to make a point of =
marking aspect, but if you leave it out, =
it's<br></blockquote><blockquote type=3D"cite">typically not a big =
deal.<br></blockquote><br>"The absence of a Type 7 suffix usually means =
that the action is not completed and not continuous (that is, it is not =
one of the things indicated by the Type 7 suffixes)." (TKD p. =
40)<br><br>If an action is not marked continuous, it is not being =
described as an action progressing in time. If it is not marked =
perfective, it is not being viewed as an action that is a completed =
whole. Go ahead and try to describe an action that actually happened =
exactly once, without describing it as spread out over time or as an =
entire, indivisible unit.<br><br>Note that because English blends tense =
and aspect, you can often get different meanings from the same =
inflections. "I eat meat" can mean that you are in the process of eating =
meat during a single sitting (continuous aspect), or it can mean you =
have a propensity to eat meat (no aspect). It cannot mean you start and =
then finish eating meat during a single sitting.<br><br>Okrand tells us =
in TKD that the aspect suffixes are *required* if a meaning involves =
aspect. {Ha'DIbaH vISop} *cannot* mean you are in the process of eating =
meat at a single sitting, because it does not have a continuous or =
progress suffix. It *cannot* mean you start and then finish eating meat =
during a single sitting, because it does not have a perfective or =
accomplished suffix. It can mean things like you having a propensity to =
eat meat, or the idea of you eating meat, or that eating meat is =
habitual for you.<br><br>To repeat: to describe an action that is whole =
and completed, -pu' or -ta' is *required*. They are not optional. To =
describe an action that is an instance of a particular ongoing event, =
-taH or -lI' is *required*.<br><br>I describe the lack of a Type 7 =
suffix as "propensity," because this was an excellent explanation of =
exactly this situation by Stephen Pinker in his book THE STUFF OF =
THOUGHT. But this is just a convenient label; such verbs without Type 7 =
suffixes can also describes verbs that are habitual, or verbs that are =
generically true.<br><br>Ha'DIbaH vISop<br>I have a propensity for =
eating meat<br>I have a habit of eating meat<br>it is true that I eat =
meat<br><br>Ha'DIbaH vISoptaH<br>I am in the process of eating meat =
during the situation being described<br><br>Ha'DIbaH vISoppu'<br>I =
started and finished eating meat during the situation being =
described<br><br>And because Klingon does not have tense marked by =
suffixes, these sentences could be talking about the past, present or =
future. Note that "occurred before the time context of the sentence" is =
perfect *tense*, not perfective aspect.<br><br>So yes, the canon from =
Okrand is right there in TKD, and it is pretty explicit.<br><br>-- =
<br>SuStel<br><a =
href=3D"http://www.trimboli.name/">http://www.trimboli.name/</a><br><br>__=
_____________________________________________<br>Tlhingan-hol mailing =
list<br>Tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org<br>http://stodi.digitalkingd=
om.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol<br></div></blockquote></div><br></bod=
y></html>=
--Apple-Mail=_32940762-B4F4-4DB6-97EF-EAB8C83BF2A5--
--===============0071705667394985877==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
--===============0071705667394985877==--
