[93605] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Time and Type 7 verb suffixes
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (=?UTF-8?B?QW5kcsOpIE3DvGxsZXI=?=)
Sat Jun 9 09:43:38 2012
In-Reply-To: <4FD34F12.2070009@trimboli.name>
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2012 15:43:16 +0200
From: =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcsOpIE3DvGxsZXI=?= <esperantist@gmail.com>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
--===============5495497301678023505==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d044304e888b68804c20a4c10
--f46d044304e888b68804c20a4c10
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
David,
In linguistics it's also a common practice to make a difference between
language-specific terminology and "global" terminology. In many grammatical
descriptions, linguists distinguish them by labeling language-specific
categories with capital letters. For instance, the Latin Ablative case
works different from the Klingon Ablative case ({-vo'}), because the Latin
Ablative has a wider use (more functions). Both Ablatives encompass the
globally defined function of an (uncapitalized!) ablative, meaning the
movement away from something.
Similarly, the Perfective aspect in Russian works differently from the
Perfective aspect marker (=E4=BA=86) in Chinese, although both encompass th=
e global
definition of "perfective aspect". It's now quite common to make this
distinction between capitalized and non-capitalized terms, but not everyone
does that. And it might not have been as wide-spread decades ago when the
TKD was written.
So, David, please don't assume that just because a marker is labeled
"perfective" in a grammar of Klingon, it automatically has to work EXACTLY
like the theoretical cross-language description of a perfective aspect, let
alone like the perfective in any natural language such as Chinese, Russian
or English (which doesn't have a stand-alone perfective, as we know).
I speak Chinese, but if I were to apply the same rules I use for the
(capitalized!) Perfective in Chinese also for the marker {-pu'} in Klingon,
both parties of your discussion would disagree with a lot of sentences I'm
writing.
pItlh.
- Andr=C3=A9
2012/6/9 David Trimboli <david@trimboli.name>
> On 6/8/2012 10:53 AM, ghunchu'wI' 'utlh wrote:
>
> I won't speak for others, but I make a distinction between what
>> "perfective" means in grammar textbooks and what TKD says it means
>> when describing Klingon grammar. I make a similar distinction
>> between the TKD term "adverbial" which describes a category of
>> individual words, and the textbook term which I think (after an
>> admittedly brief study of things like Wikipedia) describes phrases,
>> calling the individual words "adverbs".
>>
>
> A single word is also a phrase.
>
> What TKD calls adverbials are, in fact, what linguists would call
> adverbials. Okrand has used the term exactly correctly here.
>
> There are other words used in TKD that have meanings outside Klingon,
>> but when those meanings are not what I'd consider common knowledge I
>> don't rely on them to inform my use of Klingon.
>>
>
> Why? Why would you choose to intentionally ignore the meaning of a word
> when it was used to define the thing under discussion? Why would you assu=
me
> that when Okrand says "perfective," he doesn't mean perfective? Is he
> redefining the word? Is he being sloppy? Is he just plain wrong?
>
> --
> SuStel
> http://www.trimboli.name/
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol@stodi.**digitalkingdom.org<Tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom=
.org>
> http://stodi.digitalkingdom.**org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-**hol<http://=
stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol>
>
--f46d044304e888b68804c20a4c10
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">David,<br>In linguistics it's also a common practice t=
o make a difference between language-specific terminology and "global&=
quot; terminology. In many grammatical descriptions, linguists distinguish =
them by labeling language-specific categories with capital letters. For ins=
tance, the Latin Ablative case works different from the Klingon Ablative ca=
se ({-vo'}), because the Latin Ablative has a wider use (more functions=
). Both Ablatives encompass the globally defined function of an (uncapitali=
zed!) ablative, meaning the movement away from something.<br>
<br>Similarly, the Perfective aspect in Russian works differently from the =
Perfective aspect marker (=E4=BA=86) in Chinese, although both encompass th=
e global definition of "perfective aspect". It's now quite co=
mmon to make this distinction between capitalized and non-capitalized terms=
, but not everyone does that. And it might not have been as wide-spread dec=
ades ago when the TKD was written.<br>
<br>So, David, please don't assume that just because a marker is labele=
d "perfective" in a grammar of Klingon, it automatically has to w=
ork EXACTLY like the theoretical cross-language description of a perfective=
aspect, let alone like the perfective in any natural language such as Chin=
ese, Russian or English (which doesn't have a stand-alone perfective, a=
s we know).<br>
I speak Chinese, but if I were to apply the same rules I use for the (capit=
alized!) Perfective in Chinese also for the marker {-pu'} in Klingon, b=
oth parties of your discussion would disagree with a lot of sentences I'=
;m writing.<br>
<br>pItlh.<br>- Andr=C3=A9<br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">2012/6/9 David=
Trimboli <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:david@trimboli.name" targ=
et=3D"_blank">david@trimboli.name</a>></span><br><blockquote class=3D"gm=
ail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-le=
ft:1ex">
On 6/8/2012 10:53 AM, ghunchu'wI' 'utlh wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
I won't speak for others, but I make a distinction between what<br>
"perfective" means in grammar textbooks and what TKD says it mean=
s<br>
when describing Klingon grammar. I make a similar distinction<br>
between the TKD term "adverbial" which describes a category of<br=
>
individual words, and the textbook term which I think (after an<br>
admittedly brief study of things like Wikipedia) describes phrases,<br>
calling the individual words "adverbs".<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
A single word is also a phrase.<br>
<br>
What TKD calls adverbials are, in fact, what linguists would call<br>
adverbials. Okrand has used the term exactly correctly here.<br>
<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
There are other words used in TKD that have meanings outside Klingon,<br>
but when those meanings are not what I'd consider common knowledge I<br=
>
don't rely on them to inform my use of Klingon.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Why? Why would you choose to intentionally ignore the meaning of a word whe=
n it was used to define the thing under discussion? Why would you assume th=
at when Okrand says "perfective," he doesn't mean perfective?=
Is he redefining the word? Is he being sloppy? Is he just plain wrong?<spa=
n class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888"><br>
<br>
-- <br>
SuStel<br>
<a href=3D"http://www.trimboli.name/" target=3D"_blank">http://www.trimboli=
.name/</a><br>
<br>
______________________________<u></u>_________________<br>
Tlhingan-hol mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:Tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org" target=3D"_blank">=
Tlhingan-hol@stodi.<u></u>digitalkingdom.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol" t=
arget=3D"_blank">http://stodi.digitalkingdom.<u></u>org/mailman/listinfo/tl=
hingan-<u></u>hol</a><br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div>
--f46d044304e888b68804c20a4c10--
--===============5495497301678023505==
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
--===============5495497301678023505==--
