[98396] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Translating the past
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Robyn Stewart)
Sat Apr 12 23:44:30 2014
From: "Robyn Stewart" <robyn@flyingstart.ca>
To: <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
In-Reply-To: <CABSTb1evmZ6Q==zLh2oQEj3+WNNUVZuYRpak1cRo=R13r-Ws4A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2014 20:44:04 -0700
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
This is a multipart message in MIME format.
--===============7015583949862022911==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001E_01CF568F.F1E284E0"
Content-Language: en-ca
This is a multipart message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_001E_01CF568F.F1E284E0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> Could one not say {wa'leS ghaH HoHlu'pu'}, indicating that by tomorrow =
he will have gotten himself killed? This sentence uses perfective=20
> but not in any past sense, Klingon cultural attitudes toward counting =
one's chickens notwithstanding. If grammar allows such a construction, =
it > would divorce -pu' and -ta' from any connection with the past, =
except insofar as the past is more somewhat more certain than the =
future.
I don=E2=80=99t think there is any controversy about that sentence. It =
parallels ghorgh tujchoHpu=E2=80=99 bIQ? I don=E2=80=99t believe anyone =
is arguing that perfective implies past or past requires perfective, and =
if they were, I would think they were wrong.
=20
The controversial area is:
If an action is single and completed, is a timestamp sufficient, or does =
it also require a perfective aspect suffix?
Can <DuqIp=E2=80=99a=E2=80=99?> mean =E2=80=9CDid she hit you?=E2=80=9D =
[once] or only =E2=80=9CDoes she/did she hit you?=E2=80=9D [generally] =
or =E2=80=9CWill she hit you?=E2=80=9D
One of the sticking points is interpretation of the word =
=E2=80=9Cusually=E2=80=9D in the second paragraph of TKD 4.2.7.
=20
- Qov
=20
------=_NextPart_000_001E_01CF568F.F1E284E0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html xmlns:v=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" =
xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" =
xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" =
xmlns:m=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" =
xmlns=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dutf-8"><meta =
name=3DGenerator content=3D"Microsoft Word 14 (filtered =
medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext=3D"edit" spidmax=3D"1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext=3D"edit">
<o:idmap v:ext=3D"edit" data=3D"1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=3DEN-CA link=3Dblue =
vlink=3Dpurple><div class=3DWordSection1><div><div><div><div><p =
class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'color:#1F497D'>> </span>Could one =
not say {wa'leS ghaH HoHlu'pu'}, indicating that by tomorrow he =
will have gotten himself killed? This sentence uses perfective <span =
style=3D'color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'color:#1F497D'>> </span>but not in any past sense, Klingon =
cultural attitudes toward counting one's chickens notwithstanding. If =
grammar allows such a construction, it <span =
style=3D'color:#1F497D'>> </span>would divorce -pu' and -ta' from any =
connection with the past, except insofar as the past is more somewhat =
more certain than the future.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p =
class=3DMsoNormal><br clear=3Dall>I don=E2=80=99t think there is any =
controversy about that sentence. It parallels ghorgh tujchoHpu=E2=80=99 =
bIQ? =C2=A0I don=E2=80=99t believe anyone is arguing that perfective =
implies past or past requires perfective, and if they were, I would =
think they were wrong.<o:p></o:p></p><p =
class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=3DMsoNormal>The =
controversial area is:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=3DMsoNormal>If an action =
is single and completed, is a timestamp sufficient, or does it also =
require a perfective aspect suffix?<br>Can =
<DuqIp=E2=80=99a=E2=80=99?> mean =E2=80=9CDid she hit =
you?=E2=80=9D [once] or only =E2=80=9CDoes she/did she hit you?=E2=80=9D =
[generally] or =E2=80=9CWill she hit you?=E2=80=9D<br>One of the =
sticking points is interpretation of the word =E2=80=9Cusually=E2=80=9D =
in the second paragraph of TKD 4.2.7.<o:p></o:p></p><p =
class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=3DMsoNormal>- =
Qov<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><p =
class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></div></body></html>
------=_NextPart_000_001E_01CF568F.F1E284E0--
--===============7015583949862022911==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
--===============7015583949862022911==--
