[93868] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Time and Type 7 verb suffixes
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (De'vID)
Mon Jun 25 13:38:45 2012
In-Reply-To: <A62D1E7E-BB47-44E8-AF31-2A400A5D5F1A@alcaco.net>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 19:38:29 +0200
From: "De'vID" <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com>
To: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
De'vID:
>> Now, we could just be both wrong, but as far as I can tell, his claim am=
ounts to "when MO uses the word 'aspect', he really means what linguists me=
an by that term (even though he simplifies things for a popular audience)".=
=A0That's it. =A0Given that MO is a linguist writing for non-linguists, wh=
y is this assumption considered so unreasonable?
ghunchu'wI':
> It's not unreasonable on the face of it.
>
> However, if you look at how TKD actually explains what it means when it s=
ays "perfective", I think it matches the general linguistic concept of "per=
fect" instead. Look at Klingon perfective as describing the present state r=
esulting from a past event (adjusting appropriately for the time context) a=
nd see if you don't agree that's in closer agreement with TKD's definition =
and usage than the idea of describing an entire action from start to finish.
I didn't mention "perfective" in the above, because I specifically
wanted to sidestep the whole issue with "perfective" to focus on just
whether "aspect" really means "aspect".
If the word "aspect" in TKD really means "aspect", there are logical
consequences. A language with aspect markers needs some way to
indicate when none of the aspect markers apply, or a lot of things
will just become very ambiguous. Either the inapplicable aspect
markers will have to be implicitly or explicitly negated (there's no
evidence of this in Klingon), or there has to be an aspect marker
meaning "other aspect markers don't apply" (we know that such a thing
doesn't exist in Klingon), or the absence of an aspect marker must
indicate that the verb is not conveying that aspect (which seems to be
what TKD actually says).
Unless I'm missing something, the claim that Type 7 suffixes are
optional is completely independent of the debate over the meaning of
{-pu'} "perfective". Indeed, the examples raised so far involve
{-taH}. (I think everyone agrees on the meaning of {-taH}
"continuous", right?) Whether "perfective" in Klingon means
"perfective" or "perfect" or even something else, I just don't see how
you can read TKD to say that Type 7 suffixes are optional. So where
is this idea coming from? Does reading {-pu'} as "perfect" somehow
require Type 7 suffixes to be optional (i.e., for their absence not to
indicate a lack of both continuity and completion)?
Let's separate the two issues. Are you really saying that the lack of
Type 7 suffixes on a verb doesn't usually indicate that the action "is
not completed and is not continuous"?
-- =
De'vID
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
