[93527] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] mutually subordinate clauses?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (lojmIt tI'wI'nuv)
Tue Jun 5 15:51:57 2012
From: lojmIt tI'wI'nuv <lojmitti7wi7nuv@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 15:51:33 -0400
In-Reply-To: <4FCE2BD7.6050302@trimboli.name>
To: tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
--===============1035845808980584794==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_4C380CDD-3574-40BC-AB85-157438D57290"
--Apple-Mail=_4C380CDD-3574-40BC-AB85-157438D57290
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=us-ascii
I respect your expertise in the language. I appreciate the passion with =
which you hold your interest in the Klingon language and in language in =
general.
This is not a personal attack. There are no flames intended here and no =
disrespect.
In this single area of grammar, I get the sense that your personal, =
passionate, focussed study into linguistics has connected to an idea =
about language in general and you've come to a conclusion about the Type =
7 verb suffix that simply doesn't fit either the description in TKD or =
the majority of canon.
The whole concept of having a language without tense that does have =
perfective -- that perfectly separates the two ideas and is blind to one =
while invested in the other is one of the cool, alien things about =
Klingon. It is easy to be lazy or ignorant and confuse the concepts of =
tense and aspect. You are good to point out that we should not be so =
careless in this area if we are to use the language well and understand =
what it really means.
But there's nothing there to differentiate between talking about a =
single instance of an action vs. a general trend of an action taking =
place, except, of course, as always, context.
We have tools, like adverbials, like {reH, not, pIj, ghaytan}, or =
suffixes like {-qa'}, but Type 7 verb suffixes are not as required as =
you want them to be. They simply aren't.
The word "usually" in the quoted text on page 40 in TKD cannot be =
ignored, if you want to understand most of the canon Okrand has written. =
The only time that a Type 7 suffix is required is when aspect is an =
important part of the meaning of the sentence, and that simply has =
nothing to do with whether we are talking about a single instance of the =
action of the verb, or a general trend of the action of the verb to =
occur as a universal truth.
Without context, {qayaj} can either mean, "right now, in response to the =
single thing you just said, I understand you," or it can mean "for all =
the time that I've known you, I generally understand you, and I =
anticipate understanding you for the rest of our common time on this =
spiritual plane." The language simply doesn't differentiate between =
these without further context.
In fact, I'd be more inclined to expect that {qayajtaH} suggests the =
general trend rather than the single instance. And if I wish to say, "In =
this instance, I understand you," then it would be difficult for me to =
find the right aspect suffix to describe it, since {qayajtaH} suggests =
no end to my understanding you, which I don't wish to suggest, and =
{qayajlI'} suggests a foreseeable end to the understanding, as well as a =
goal, which really doesn't fit my intent, and {qayajpu'} suggests that I =
no longer understand you because the process of my understanding you has =
been completed and no longer continues, as does {qayajta'}.
So, my point is that while understanding aspect is important, and you've =
clearly done some outside reading on this topic, the conclusion that =
you've come to in this single topic is erroneous. Much of what you say =
is completely correct, but you have made up a connection between the =
presence or absence of a Type 7 suffix and verbs describing a single =
instance or event vs. a general trend that simply has no basis. You made =
it up.
You came to the conclusion based on what may have been a perfect =
argument in some other context, but here, in Klingon grammar, there is =
no connection that requires a Type 7 suffix on a verb in order to =
differentiate an instance vs. a trend.
It's not that you are not being understood. It's that you are wrong.
Just this time.
You are often quite right and you teach the rest of us by bringing =
important perspectives to the discussion of how this language works. =
Just not this time.
There is no shame in being wrong now and then. I do it often.
"If you can't make a mistake, you can't make anything." I think Edison =
said that, but I'm not sure. But then, he's dead, so it's not really all =
that important to him either way. But the point is, I heard it somewhere =
and it made sense to me, so I still say it often, though it wasn't my =
original idea. It's just worth repeating.
We do this for fun, and most of us, most of the time, don't really =
intend to hurt anyone's feelings. In this episode, I definitely don't =
intend to hurt your feelings.
And I want us to understand the language to the best of our ability, =
which involves identifying mistakes and resolving them, which, =
unfortunately, is really hard to do sometimes without making somebody =
mad, if they are really invested in their mistake.
Time can cool this.=20
And repeating the error will not make it true.
qavuvtaH. It may not be obvious, but it is true.
pItlh
lojmIt tI'wI'nuv
On Jun 5, 2012, at 11:55 AM, David Trimboli wrote:
> On 6/5/2012 11:45 AM, lojmIt tI'wI'nuv wrote:
>> 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".
>>=20
>> So, if I write of my wife and say:
>>=20
>> pIj jatlhtaH.
>>=20
>> 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?
>=20
> Having aspect doesn't mean the verb must describe a single episode; =
lacking aspect means the verb can't be describing a single episode in =
its entirety.
>=20
>> Or if I complain that I generally don't get enough sleep because
>> of my bad bed:
>>=20
>> QongDaqwIjmo' not jIQongchu'ta'.
>>=20
>> Again, you would insist that I'm talking about a specific ocurance.
>=20
> No, I wouldn't.
>=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=_4C380CDD-3574-40BC-AB85-157438D57290
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; ">I =
respect your expertise in the language. I appreciate the passion with =
which you hold your interest in the Klingon language and in language in =
general.<div><br></div><div>This is not a personal attack. There are no =
flames intended here and no disrespect.</div><div><br></div><div>In this =
single area of grammar, I get the sense that your personal, passionate, =
focussed study into linguistics has connected to an idea about language =
in general and you've come to a conclusion about the Type 7 verb suffix =
that simply doesn't fit either the description in TKD or the majority of =
canon.</div><div><br></div><div>The whole concept of having a language =
without tense that does have perfective -- that perfectly separates the =
two ideas and is blind to one while invested in the other is one of the =
cool, alien things about Klingon. It is easy to be lazy or ignorant and =
confuse the concepts of tense and aspect. You are good to point out that =
we should not be so careless in this area if we are to use the language =
well and understand what it really means.</div><div><br></div><div>But =
there's nothing there to differentiate between talking about a single =
instance of an action vs. a general trend of an action taking place, =
except, of course, as always, context.</div><div><br></div><div>We have =
tools, like adverbials, like {reH, not, pIj, ghaytan}, or suffixes like =
{-qa'}, but Type 7 verb suffixes are not as required as you want them to =
be. They simply aren't.</div><div><br></div><div>The word "usually" in =
the quoted text on page 40 in TKD cannot be ignored, if you want to =
understand most of the canon Okrand has written. The only time that a =
Type 7 suffix is required is when aspect is an important part of the =
meaning of the sentence, and that simply has nothing to do with whether =
we are talking about a single instance of the action of the verb, or a =
general trend of the action of the verb to occur as a universal =
truth.</div><div><br></div><div>Without context, {qayaj} can either =
mean, "right now, in response to the single thing you just said, I =
understand you," or it can mean "for all the time that I've known you, I =
generally understand you, and I anticipate understanding you for the =
rest of our common time on this spiritual plane." The language simply =
doesn't differentiate between these without further =
context.</div><div><br></div><div>In fact, I'd be more inclined to =
expect that {qayajtaH} suggests the general trend rather than the single =
instance. And if I wish to say, "In this instance, I understand you," =
then it would be difficult for me to find the right aspect suffix to =
describe it, since {qayajtaH} suggests no end to my understanding you, =
which I don't wish to suggest, and {qayajlI'} suggests a foreseeable end =
to the understanding, as well as a goal, which really doesn't fit my =
intent, and {qayajpu'} suggests that I no longer understand you because =
the process of my understanding you has been completed and no longer =
continues, as does {qayajta'}.</div><div><br></div><div>So, my point is =
that while understanding aspect is important, and you've clearly done =
some outside reading on this topic, the conclusion that you've come to =
in this single topic is erroneous. Much of what you say is completely =
correct, but you have made up a connection between the presence or =
absence of a Type 7 suffix and verbs describing a single instance or =
event vs. a general trend that simply has no basis. You made it =
up.</div><div><br></div><div>You came to the conclusion based on what =
may have been a perfect argument in some other context, but here, in =
Klingon grammar, there is no connection that requires a Type 7 suffix on =
a verb in order to differentiate an instance vs. a =
trend.</div><div><br></div><div>It's not that you are not being =
understood. It's that you are wrong.</div><div><br></div><div>Just this =
time.</div><div><br></div><div>You are often quite right and you teach =
the rest of us by bringing important perspectives to the discussion of =
how this language works. Just not this =
time.</div><div><br></div><div>There is no shame in being wrong now and =
then. I do it often.</div><div><br></div><div>"If you can't make a =
mistake, you can't make anything." I think Edison said that, but I'm not =
sure. But then, he's dead, so it's not really all that important to him =
either way. But the point is, I heard it somewhere and it made sense to =
me, so I still say it often, though it wasn't my original idea. It's =
just worth repeating.</div><div><br></div><div>We do this for fun, and =
most of us, most of the time, don't really intend to hurt anyone's =
feelings. In this episode, I definitely don't intend to hurt your =
feelings.</div><div><br></div><div>And I want us to understand the =
language to the best of our ability, which involves identifying mistakes =
and resolving them, which, unfortunately, is really hard to do sometimes =
without making somebody mad, if they are really invested in their =
mistake.</div><div><br></div><div>Time can cool =
this. </div><div><br></div><div>And repeating the error will not =
make it true.</div><div><div><br></div><div>qavuvtaH. It may not be =
obvious, but it is true.</div><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 5, 2012, at 11:55 AM, David Trimboli =
wrote:</div><br class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote =
type=3D"cite"><div>On 6/5/2012 11:45 AM, lojmIt tI'wI'nuv =
wrote:<br><blockquote type=3D"cite">You are skipping over the word =
"usually" in your own quote and putting<br></blockquote><blockquote =
type=3D"cite">more weight on the statement than it can hold. You are =
loading it with<br></blockquote><blockquote type=3D"cite">words like =
"required" and "cannot".<br></blockquote><blockquote =
type=3D"cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type=3D"cite">So, if I write =
of my wife and say:<br></blockquote><blockquote =
type=3D"cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type=3D"cite">pIj =
jatlhtaH.<br></blockquote><blockquote =
type=3D"cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type=3D"cite">According to =
you, that's a single episode. Never mind the adverbial. =
I<br></blockquote><blockquote type=3D"cite">have an aspect marker, =
therefore I MUST be talking about a single =
event,<br></blockquote><blockquote =
type=3D"cite">right?<br></blockquote><br>Having aspect doesn't mean the =
verb must describe a single episode; lacking aspect means the verb can't =
be describing a single episode in its entirety.<br><br><blockquote =
type=3D"cite">Or if I complain that I generally don't get enough sleep =
because<br></blockquote><blockquote type=3D"cite">of my bad =
bed:<br></blockquote><blockquote =
type=3D"cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type=3D"cite">QongDaqwIjmo' =
not jIQongchu'ta'.<br></blockquote><blockquote =
type=3D"cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type=3D"cite">Again, you =
would insist that I'm talking about a specific =
ocurance.<br></blockquote><br>No, I wouldn't.<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></div=
></div></body></html>=
--Apple-Mail=_4C380CDD-3574-40BC-AB85-157438D57290--
--===============1035845808980584794==
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
--===============1035845808980584794==--
