[93554] in tlhIngan-Hol
[Tlhingan-hol] Time and Type 7 verb suffixes
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (lojmIt tI'wI'nuv)
Wed Jun 6 17:44:50 2012
From: lojmIt tI'wI'nuv <lojmitti7wi7nuv@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 17:44:31 -0400
To: tlhIngan-Hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
--===============1879164353646302936==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_7A8AF5EF-FB92-4690-9A0A-357DFE73F200"
--Apple-Mail=_7A8AF5EF-FB92-4690-9A0A-357DFE73F200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=us-ascii
My response to SuStel apparently bombed because it got too long. I will =
work to be concise, and start over.
Instead of just trying to have a "I'm right and you are wrong" contest, =
I'm going to describe my understanding of how Klingon deals with the =
absence of tense, and how the Type 7 verb suffix fits into this, and =
clarify the difference I believe exists between Sustel and myself in the =
interpretation of page 40 in KTD. I promise to try REALLY HARD to not =
create a straw man argument, in any way misinterpreting what SuStel is =
trying to say in order to belittle his argument. I may fail, but this is =
an honest effort. I wanted to respond in line, but the message failed to =
get through because his text and mind combined is too long for this =
list.
In English, we have a time line with a single point "the present" that =
is the boundary between the "past" and "future". The present is the end =
of the past and the beginning of the future, though it is contained =
within neither. It is the boundary.
A lot of English grammar is based upon this time structure. If I say in =
English, "Yesterday, I go to the store," then I just made a grammatical =
error because we are required to express tense as part of the verb form, =
and the time stamp "Yesterday" is a deictic reference planted firmly in =
the past tense.
Klingon doesn't have a single, absolute structure for how a verb's =
action fits on a time line. There is no tense. "Now" and "yesterday" are =
both equally valid time references with an important difference. "Now" =
is brief. "Yesterday is 24 hours long. In Klingon, it refers to the time =
beginning at sunrise yesterday and ending at sunrise today.
Tense doesn't give you a shape on the time line. You just know that a =
past tense verb touched the time line some time before now. A present =
tense verb is touching the time line now. A future tense verb touches =
the time line after now.
There's a confusing similarity between the past tense and the present =
perfect. The present perfect informs you that action was completed =
before the present. Past tense informs you that the action occurred =
before now.
I ate dinner. (Past)
I have eaten dinner. (Present perfect)
The difference between these two is more important in Klingon than in =
English, which confuses people.
Instead of tense, Klingon uses "time stamps". It is very similar to the =
way Klingon deals with location. The locative, like the time stamp, =
comes at the beginning of a sentence, if it is included at all. Both are =
optional.
While in English, we are required to get the tense right in every verb =
in every sentence, in Klingon, a time stamp or a locative in one =
sentence can become the context that is assumed as unchanged while we =
speak or write entire conversations or novel length books. In general, a =
time stamp or a locative helps the listener/reader establish the context =
of things being said, and since in many areas of grammar Klingon abhors =
redundancy, once the time or location is established, unless it changes, =
it becomes part of the "context" and tends not to be repeated.
Hence, Okrand's explanation in TKD that it's like you say, "Today, I go =
to the store." "Yesterday, I go to the store." "Tomorrow, I go to the =
store." There is no change in verb form relating to the concept of =
tense.
The thing that's not obvious to people who haven't worked with the =
language much is that in Klingon, a time stamp implies a duration as =
well as a reserved spot on the time line, much the way that a locative =
implies an area that has both a location and a size. That's where the =
gotcha comes in when dealing with a Type 7 verb suffix.
If I say {DaH 'uQ vISoppu'}, then I've said "Now, I have eaten dinner." =
This is equal the the English sentence, "I have eaten dinner."
But if I say, {wa'Hu' 'uQ vISoppu'}, then it's not quite accurate to =
translate that as "I had eaten dinner yesterday." It's actually hard to =
accurately translate it because there is no exact equivalent in English =
without further context. What it really means is, "Either before =
yesterday started, or at some point during the full span of yesterday, =
from sunrise to sunrise, I finished eating dinner."
I'm not saying anything about when I started dinner. I'm not saying =
anything about how long I ate dinner. I'm just saying that on a time =
line, the end point of the action of my eating dinner occurred during or =
before the Klingon version of yesterday.
Notice that I could describe the exact same event with the words {wa'Hu' =
'uQ vISop.}
The real difference between these two is that in the first version, I'm =
placing the end of the event of my eating dinner during or before =
yesterday, while in the second version, I'm expressing that the action =
of my eating occurred during the span of yesterday. If the beginning, =
middle and end of my eating dinner all happened during yesterday, both =
statements are accurate. Using {-pu'} simply emphasizes that the =
completion of the action occurred during or before the time span of the =
time stamp.
Replace {wa'Hu'} with {wa'leS} and you've simply moved the time stamp. =
Everything else about both statements remains the same.
Time references are part of context for the action of the verb, either =
established at the beginning of a sentence, or at some earlier point in =
the conversation, or assumed to be mutually understood because of... =
context.
Type 7 suffixes don't tell you when something happened. They combine =
with the time stamp to describe the shape of the action along the time =
line. {-taH} has no beginning or end within the scope of the time stamp. =
{-pu'} and {-ta'} both have an ending that occurs before or during the =
scope of the time stamp. {-lI'} has an ending that occurs during or =
after the scope of the time stamp.
The difference of opinion that started the argument with SuStel is that =
I believe that a Type 7 suffix is, like a locative or a time stamp, or a =
plural suffix on a noun, optional. It's presence can enhance the context =
of the action of the verb, but its absence implies nothing reliable in =
terms of meaning.
As an analog, I can point to a tree and say, "Look at that tall tree," =
or I can say, "Look at that tree," and mean exactly the same thing. The =
word "tall" colors the meaning some and may be significant, but the =
second command does not imply that the tree is short. I believe that =
Type 7 suffixes are like that.
SuStel suggests that in every instance that a Type 7 suffix would be =
appropriate, it is required, and that the absence of a Type 7 suffix =
implies specific meaning. He points to page 40 in TKD, where it says:
"The absence of a Type 7 suffix usually means the action is not =
completed and is not continuous (that is, it is not one of the things =
indicated by the Type 7 suffixes). Verbs with no Type 7 suffix are =
translated by the English simple present tense."
He places no weight on the word "usually" and takes a hard line on what =
it means to omit any Type 7 suffix on a verb. Since he assumes that the =
Type 7 suffix is required at all times whenever a verb's action is =
completed or continuous, or "one of the things indicated by the Type 7 =
suffixes", then IT MUST BE SOMETHING ELSE. Pondering what this =
"something else" must mean, he has determined that it must imply that =
the action of the verb doesn't have one of the shapes on a time line =
described by Type 7. It must be a general trend or a habit or some other =
imperfective, non-continuous action.
He asked me to describe what I believed his argument was. This is my =
limited understanding of his argument. There are other details, and =
there are some inconsistencies, but these are the elements that have =
been most strongly emphasized that I have managed to take in.
I won't argue that the absence of a Type 7 suffix can't mean what he =
says it means. I simply argue that the word "usually" deserves a lot of =
weight, given a lot of canon that has been given translations a lot =
simpler than they would need to have were they to follow SuStel's strict =
interpretation.=20
I mean, if we are going to be THAT strict and overlook "usually", then =
why let go of Okrand's advice of translating all these verbs without =
Type 7 suffixes as simple present tense? I doubt that SuStel wants that.
Okrand wrote TKD while he was in the process of inventing the language. =
It's like the pirate code. It's not a strict law. "It's more of a =
guideline, really." Okrand has repeatedly told us to look to canon =
(though sometimes this involves painful eye rolling). There are a lot of =
verbs in canon without Type 7. It requires extreme contortions to =
interpret every single one of them by SuStel's inflexible, absolute =
instructions.
I respect SuStel a lot.
He has made many great contributions to the KLI and to our understanding =
of the language in general. I am saddened to read him saying that he =
"usually gets this treatment". I know that I'm guilty many times of =
disagreeing with him, but I also know that many times I completely agree =
with him in many of his arguments with others, and his opinions have =
informed mine on many occasions.
I also know that if you walk into a bar with a drawn knife you are more =
likely to find a bar fight than if you just walk in a bar. Inserting =
words like "required" where they didn't exist and saying what things =
"cannot" mean, when TKD didn't say "cannot" is the drawn knife.
At times, our ongoing disagreements have gotten quite toxic, enough that =
I honestly felt like "this town ain't big enough for the both of us," =
and when I felt that, I left because I honestly felt that the community =
would suffer at least as much for the loss of him as for the loss of me, =
and perhaps he would suffer more of a loss than I without the community =
than I would. That is a deep sign of respect, whether it has been =
recognized or not.
My hope was that over time, the intensity of disagreement would cool and =
we could both participate here without the flames and insults, anger and =
hurt feelings. I still have that hope.
Meanwhile, as much as I do respect SuStel, I do not believe that I do =
good service to him or anybody else to step down on this issue and say, =
"Sure, go ahead and add whatever new rule to Type 7 that you want. Make =
people use it in lots of settings that they otherwise would comfortably =
omit it, and misinterpret their meaning often when they do omit it =
because you demand that the absence of a Type 7 suffix universally and =
without exception implies a specific meaning about continuity and =
completion of the action, interpreted as a general trend, a habit, or =
some other form of non-continuous, incomplete action."
I'm just not going there. I sincerely believe SuStel to be mistaken. It =
happens. I make mistakes. He makes mistakes. It's okay.
But we can only learn if we reconsider things and come to some vague =
semblance of agreement on how to use the language, and if only one guy =
thinks that the absence of a Type 7 suffix on a verb has as much =
specific meaning as the presence of a Type 7 suffix, then that guy is =
not talking the same language as the rest of us. He's starting a =
dialect, spoken by one guy.
Unless there are others out there who think that the absence of a Type 7 =
suffix always as much specific meaning as the presence of it, and that =
these people can always tell us exactly what that specific meaning is.
So much for being concise. I tried. I failed.
pItlh
lojmIt tI'wI'nuv
--Apple-Mail=_7A8AF5EF-FB92-4690-9A0A-357DFE73F200
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; ">My =
response to SuStel apparently bombed because it got too long. I will =
work to be concise, and start over.<div><br></div><div>Instead of just =
trying to have a "I'm right and you are wrong" contest, I'm going to =
describe my understanding of how Klingon deals with the absence of =
tense, and how the Type 7 verb suffix fits into this, and clarify the =
difference I believe exists between Sustel and myself in the =
interpretation of page 40 in KTD. I promise to try REALLY HARD to not =
create a straw man argument, in any way misinterpreting what SuStel is =
trying to say in order to belittle his argument. I may fail, but this is =
an honest effort. I wanted to respond in line, but the message failed to =
get through because his text and mind combined is too long for this =
list.</div><div><br></div><div>In English, we have a time line with a =
single point "the present" that is the boundary between the "past" and =
"future". The present is the end of the past and the beginning of the =
future, though it is contained within neither. It is the =
boundary.</div><div><br></div><div>A lot of English grammar is based =
upon this time structure. If I say in English, "Yesterday, I go to the =
store," then I just made a grammatical error because we are required to =
express tense as part of the verb form, and the time stamp "Yesterday" =
is a deictic reference planted firmly in the past =
tense.</div><div><br></div><div>Klingon doesn't have a single, absolute =
structure for how a verb's action fits on a time line. There is no =
tense. "Now" and "yesterday" are both equally valid time references with =
an important difference. "Now" is brief. "Yesterday is 24 hours long. In =
Klingon, it refers to the time beginning at sunrise yesterday and ending =
at sunrise today.</div><div><br></div><div>Tense doesn't give you a =
shape on the time line. You just know that a past tense verb touched the =
time line some time before now. A present tense verb is touching the =
time line now. A future tense verb touches the time line after =
now.</div><div><div><br></div><div>There's a confusing similarity =
between the past tense and the present perfect. The present perfect =
informs you that action was completed before the present. Past tense =
informs you that the action occurred before =
now.</div><div><br></div><div>I ate dinner. =
(Past)</div><div><br></div><div>I have eaten dinner. (Present =
perfect)</div><div><br></div><div>The difference between these two is =
more important in Klingon than in English, which confuses =
people.</div><div><br></div><div>Instead of tense, Klingon uses "time =
stamps". It is very similar to the way Klingon deals with location. The =
locative, like the time stamp, comes at the beginning of a sentence, if =
it is included at all. Both are optional.</div><div><br></div><div>While =
in English, we are required to get the tense right in every verb in =
every sentence, in Klingon, a time stamp or a locative in one sentence =
can become the context that is assumed as unchanged while we speak or =
write entire conversations or novel length books. In general, a time =
stamp or a locative helps the listener/reader establish the context of =
things being said, and since in many areas of grammar Klingon abhors =
redundancy, once the time or location is established, unless it changes, =
it becomes part of the "context" and tends not to be =
repeated.</div><div><br></div><div>Hence, Okrand's explanation in TKD =
that it's like you say, "Today, I go to the store." "Yesterday, I go to =
the store." "Tomorrow, I go to the store." There is no change in verb =
form relating to the concept of tense.</div><div><br></div><div>The =
thing that's not obvious to people who haven't worked with the language =
much is that in Klingon, a time stamp implies a duration as well as a =
reserved spot on the time line, much the way that a locative implies an =
area that has both a location and a size. That's where the gotcha comes =
in when dealing with a Type 7 verb suffix.</div><div><br></div><div>If I =
say {DaH 'uQ vISoppu'}, then I've said "Now, I have eaten dinner." This =
is equal the the English sentence, "I have eaten =
dinner."</div><div><br></div><div>But if I say, {wa'Hu' 'uQ vISoppu'}, =
then it's not quite accurate to translate that as "I had eaten dinner =
yesterday." It's actually hard to accurately translate it because there =
is no exact equivalent in English without further context. What it =
really means is, "Either before yesterday started, or at some point =
during the full span of yesterday, from sunrise to sunrise, I finished =
eating dinner."</div><div><br></div><div>I'm not saying anything about =
when I started dinner. I'm not saying anything about how long I ate =
dinner. I'm just saying that on a time line, the end point of the action =
of my eating dinner occurred during or before the Klingon version of =
yesterday.</div><div><br></div><div>Notice that I could describe the =
exact same event with the words {wa'Hu' 'uQ =
vISop.}</div><div><br></div><div>The real difference between these two =
is that in the first version, I'm placing the end of the event of my =
eating dinner during or before yesterday, while in the second version, =
I'm expressing that the action of my eating occurred during the span of =
yesterday. If the beginning, middle and end of my eating dinner all =
happened during yesterday, both statements are accurate. Using {-pu'} =
simply emphasizes that the completion of the action occurred during or =
before the time span of the time stamp.</div><div><br></div><div>Replace =
{wa'Hu'} with {wa'leS} and you've simply moved the time stamp. =
Everything else about both statements remains the =
same.</div><div><br></div><div>Time references are part of context for =
the action of the verb, either established at the beginning of a =
sentence, or at some earlier point in the conversation, or assumed to be =
mutually understood because of... context.</div><div><br></div><div>Type =
7 suffixes don't tell you when something happened. They combine with the =
time stamp to describe the shape of the action along the time line. =
{-taH} has no beginning or end within the scope of the time stamp. =
{-pu'} and {-ta'} both have an ending that occurs before or during the =
scope of the time stamp. {-lI'} has an ending that occurs during or =
after the scope of the time stamp.</div><div><br></div><div>The =
difference of opinion that started the argument with SuStel is that I =
believe that a Type 7 suffix is, like a locative or a time stamp, or a =
plural suffix on a noun, optional. It's presence can enhance the context =
of the action of the verb, but its absence implies nothing reliable in =
terms of meaning.</div><div><br></div><div>As an analog, I can point to =
a tree and say, "Look at that tall tree," or I can say, "Look at that =
tree," and mean exactly the same thing. The word "tall" colors the =
meaning some and may be significant, but the second command does not =
imply that the tree is short. I believe that Type 7 suffixes are like =
that.</div><div><br></div><div>SuStel suggests that in every instance =
that a Type 7 suffix would be appropriate, it is required, and that the =
absence of a Type 7 suffix implies specific meaning. He points to page =
40 in TKD, where it says:</div><div><br></div><div>"The absence of a =
Type 7 suffix usually means the action is not completed and is not =
continuous (that is, it is not one of the things indicated by the Type 7 =
suffixes). Verbs with no Type 7 suffix are translated by the English =
simple present tense."</div><div><br></div><div>He places no weight on =
the word "usually" and takes a hard line on what it means to omit any =
Type 7 suffix on a verb. Since he assumes that the Type 7 suffix is =
required at all times whenever a verb's action is completed or =
continuous, or "one of the things indicated by the Type 7 suffixes", =
then IT MUST BE SOMETHING ELSE. Pondering what this "something else" =
must mean, he has determined that it must imply that the action of the =
verb doesn't have one of the shapes on a time line described by Type 7. =
It must be a general trend or a habit or some other imperfective, =
non-continuous action.</div><div><br></div><div>He asked me to describe =
what I believed his argument was. This is my limited understanding of =
his argument. There are other details, and there are some =
inconsistencies, but these are the elements that have been most strongly =
emphasized that I have managed to take in.</div><div><br></div><div>I =
won't argue that the absence of a Type 7 suffix can't mean what he says =
it means. I simply argue that the word "usually" deserves a lot of =
weight, given a lot of canon that has been given translations a lot =
simpler than they would need to have were they to follow SuStel's strict =
interpretation. </div><div><br></div><div>I mean, if we are going =
to be THAT strict and overlook "usually", then why let go of Okrand's =
advice of translating all these verbs without Type 7 suffixes as simple =
present tense? I doubt that SuStel wants =
that.</div><div><br></div><div>Okrand wrote TKD while he was in the =
process of inventing the language. It's like the pirate code. It's not a =
strict law. "It's more of a guideline, really." Okrand has repeatedly =
told us to look to canon (though sometimes this involves painful eye =
rolling). There are a lot of verbs in canon without Type 7. It requires =
extreme contortions to interpret every single one of them by SuStel's =
inflexible, absolute instructions.</div><div><br></div><div>I respect =
SuStel a lot.</div><div><br></div><div>He has made many great =
contributions to the KLI and to our understanding of the language in =
general. I am saddened to read him saying that he "usually gets this =
treatment". I know that I'm guilty many times of disagreeing with him, =
but I also know that many times I completely agree with him in many of =
his arguments with others, and his opinions have informed mine on many =
occasions.</div><div><br></div><div>I also know that if you walk into a =
bar with a drawn knife you are more likely to find a bar fight than if =
you just walk in a bar. Inserting words like "required" where they =
didn't exist and saying what things "cannot" mean, when TKD didn't say =
"cannot" is the drawn knife.</div><div><br></div><div>At times, our =
ongoing disagreements have gotten quite toxic, enough that I honestly =
felt like "this town ain't big enough for the both of us," and when I =
felt that, I left because I honestly felt that the community would =
suffer at least as much for the loss of him as for the loss of me, and =
perhaps he would suffer more of a loss than I without the community than =
I would. That is a deep sign of respect, whether it has been recognized =
or not.</div><div><br></div><div>My hope was that over time, the =
intensity of disagreement would cool and we could both participate here =
without the flames and insults, anger and hurt feelings. I still have =
that hope.</div><div><br></div><div>Meanwhile, as much as I do respect =
SuStel, I do not believe that I do good service to him or anybody else =
to step down on this issue and say, "Sure, go ahead and add whatever new =
rule to Type 7 that you want. Make people use it in lots of settings =
that they otherwise would comfortably omit it, and misinterpret their =
meaning often when they do omit it because you demand that the absence =
of a Type 7 suffix universally and without exception implies a specific =
meaning about continuity and completion of the action, interpreted as a =
general trend, a habit, or some other form of non-continuous, incomplete =
action."</div><div><br></div><div>I'm just not going there. I sincerely =
believe SuStel to be mistaken. It happens. I make mistakes. He makes =
mistakes. It's okay.</div><div><br></div><div>But we can only learn if =
we reconsider things and come to some vague semblance of agreement on =
how to use the language, and if only one guy thinks that the absence of =
a Type 7 suffix on a verb has as much specific meaning as the presence =
of a Type 7 suffix, then that guy is not talking the same language as =
the rest of us. He's starting a dialect, spoken by one =
guy.</div><div><br></div><div>Unless there are others out there who =
think that the absence of a Type 7 suffix always as much specific =
meaning as the presence of it, and that these people can always tell us =
exactly what that specific meaning is.</div><div><br></div><div>So much =
for being concise. I tried. I failed.</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></body></html>=
--Apple-Mail=_7A8AF5EF-FB92-4690-9A0A-357DFE73F200--
--===============1879164353646302936==
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
--===============1879164353646302936==--
