[93610] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Time and Type 7 verb suffixes
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (=?UTF-8?B?QW5kcsOpIE3DvGxsZXI=?=)
Sat Jun 9 10:56:55 2012
In-Reply-To: <4FD35AAA.5000705@trimboli.name>
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2012 16:56:38 +0200
From: =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcsOpIE3DvGxsZXI=?= <esperantist@gmail.com>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Cc: tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
--===============1979608461793035285==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001636eeeb38f468cb04c20b52a3
--001636eeeb38f468cb04c20b52a3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
2012/6/9 David Trimboli <david@trimboli.name>
> On 6/9/2012 9:43 AM, Andr=C3=A9 M=C3=BCller wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Okrand does not capitalize "perfective." :)
Yes, because he doesn't use this practice in his book. Maybe it wasn't so
common back in those days or he simply decided against them, because the
book was designed for non-linguists.
>
>
> 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 don't assume that. I'm certain that the true case is more complicated
> than that, as shown by examples such as {nIn Hoch natlhlu'pu'}. But to
> ignore the global meaning of the term when it was the term used to define
> the suffixes, and when supplemented by the claim that Klingon does not
> express tense (formally), it's obviously wrong to say that the Klingon
> perfective suffixes simply indicate an action that is over and done with =
by
> the time of the perspective.
>
>
I wouldn't say so. It's far from obvious. Okrand does not apply this handy
capitalization difference, so just from the word "perfective" we can't know
if Okrand means the global meaning of "perfective" or the language-specific
one ("Perfective"). The context usually tells us, but we cannot conclude
the full range of meanings just from a description like "The suffix {-pu'}
marks the perfective aspect in Klingon."; we HAVE to read on his
explanation and check the examples to see if the explanation suffices. Just
because Okrand calls something in a certain way, doesn't mean the global
definition applies for Klingon.
>
> 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.
>>
>
> Sure. And my claim is that if speakers apply the rules of perfect tenses
> when using -pu' and -ta', Klingons would disagree with a lot of the
> sentences they utter.
Yes, same thing. I agree that it's certainly not identical with the English
perfect tense. But because I didn't follow the entire discussion and
haven't made up my own opinion on the Klingon Perfective aspect yet, I
don't assume any position in the argument. I just wanted to mention that we
cannot know the usage and exact meaning of a grammatical category just from
looking at its label.
I noticed the same sometimes happening with the topic marker {-'e'}. Okrand
explained its usage pretty well and we have a lot of examples. He decided
to call it a topic marker (it would get capitalized in some other
linguists' grammars). Yet there are people who judge from the label only
and believe they could construct an entire OVS clause after a noun marked
with {-'e'} (meaning for instance "As for crew, everyone trusts the
captain."). This works with topic constructions in Chinese and perhaps
Japanese, but certainly not in Klingon. I don't want to raise this as a new
topic (of discussion, I mean), but it's the same thing: people judge from
the label and construct ungrammatical sentences.
- Andr=C3=A9
--001636eeeb38f468cb04c20b52a3
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">2012/6/9 David Trimboli=
<span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:david@trimboli.name" target=3D"_bl=
ank">david@trimboli.name</a>></span><br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote=
" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class=3D"im">On 6/9/2012 9:43 AM, Andr=C3=A9 M=C3=BCller wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
In linguistics it's also a common practice to make a difference between=
<br>
language-specific terminology and "global" terminology. In many<b=
r>
grammatical descriptions, linguists distinguish them by labeling<br>
language-specific categories with capital letters.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
Okrand does not capitalize "perfective." :)</blockquote><div><br>=
<br>Yes, because he doesn't use this practice in his book. Maybe it was=
n't so common back in those days or he simply decided against them, bec=
ause the book was designed for non-linguists.<br>
=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0=
.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div class=3D=
"im"><br>
<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
So, David, please don't assume that just because a marker is labeled<br=
>
"perfective" in a grammar of Klingon, it automatically has to wor=
k<br>
EXACTLY like the theoretical cross-language description of a perfective<br>
aspect, let alone like the perfective in any natural language such as<br>
Chinese, Russian or English (which doesn't have a stand-alone<br>
perfective, as we know).<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
I don't assume that. I'm certain that the true case is more complic=
ated than that, as shown by examples such as {nIn Hoch natlhlu'pu'}=
. But to ignore the global meaning of the term when it was the term used to=
define the suffixes, and when supplemented by the claim that Klingon does =
not express tense (formally), it's obviously wrong to say that the Klin=
gon perfective suffixes simply indicate an action that is over and done wit=
h by the time of the perspective.<div class=3D"im">
<br></div></blockquote><div><br>I wouldn't say so. It's far from ob=
vious. Okrand does not apply this handy capitalization difference, so just =
from the word "perfective" we can't know if Okrand means the =
global meaning of "perfective" or the language-specific one (&quo=
t;Perfective"). The context usually tells us, but we cannot conclude t=
he full range of meanings just from a description like "The suffix {-p=
u'} marks the perfective aspect in Klingon."; we HAVE to read on h=
is explanation and check the examples to see if the explanation suffices. J=
ust because Okrand calls something in a certain way, doesn't mean the g=
lobal definition applies for Klingon.<br>
<br>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0pt 0pt 0=
pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div clas=
s=3D"im">
<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
I speak Chinese, but if I were to apply the same rules I use for the<br>
(capitalized!) Perfective in Chinese also for the marker {-pu'} in<br>
Klingon, both parties of your discussion would disagree with a lot of<br>
sentences I'm writing.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
Sure. And my claim is that if speakers apply the rules of perfect tenses wh=
en using -pu' and -ta', Klingons would disagree with a lot of the s=
entences they utter.</blockquote><div><br>Yes, same thing. I agree that it&=
#39;s certainly not identical with the English perfect tense. But because I=
didn't follow the entire discussion and haven't made up my own opi=
nion on the Klingon Perfective aspect yet, I don't assume any position =
in the argument. I just wanted to mention that we cannot know the usage and=
exact meaning of a grammatical category just from looking at its label.<br=
>
I noticed the same sometimes happening with the topic marker {-'e'}=
. Okrand explained its usage pretty well and we have a lot of examples. He =
decided to call it a topic marker (it would get capitalized in some other l=
inguists' grammars). Yet there are people who judge from the label only=
and believe they could construct an entire OVS clause after a noun marked =
with {-'e'} (meaning for instance "As for crew, everyone trust=
s the captain."). This works with topic constructions in Chinese and p=
erhaps Japanese, but certainly not in Klingon. I don't want to raise th=
is as a new topic (of discussion, I mean), but it's the same thing: peo=
ple judge from the label and construct ungrammatical sentences.<br>
<br>- Andr=C3=A9<br></div></div></div>
--001636eeeb38f468cb04c20b52a3--
--===============1979608461793035285==
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
--===============1979608461793035285==--
