[93749] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Time and Type 7 verb suffixes
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Qov)
Sat Jun 16 21:40:13 2012
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 19:36:01 -0600
To: Klingon language email discussion forum <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
From: Qov <robyn@flyingstart.ca>
In-Reply-To: <CAFK8js3DWy4og=vHfRvgCJZ6ntCdmqukQjWbR3RJ+adsK4wArg@mail.g
mail.com>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
At 19:16 '?????' 6/16/2012, ghunchu'wI' 'utlh wrote:
>On Jun 16, 2012, at 12:10 PM, "De'vID" <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > What would be a counterexample to his (and my) interpretation of
> the sentence from TKD p.40 about the meaning of a verb when a Type
> 7 suffix is absent is an instance from canon of a verb expressing a
> perfective or continuous aspect but which does not have the
> corresponding suffix. And I don't think there's any such example from canon.
>
>I can think of one immediately: {nughoS jagh} from the Conversational
>Klingon battle vignette.
That's a good one, but being in battle it could arguably be said to be clipped.
>(The abundant paq'batlh examples are apparently tainted by having been
>read before publication by a group that did not include SuStel, so I
>won't detail them here.)
yIvaqQo'. But let it be asked: does anyone recall deleting or
changing aspect suffixes as we worked? As I said before, I don't
remember doing it.
I think it's telling that the people who are most influenced by this
idea are the ones who speak or have studied another language that
uses perfective aspect. DaQtIq, bISaHtaH'a'?
- Qov
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
