[98411] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Translating the past
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Bellerophon, modeler)
Mon Apr 14 16:45:04 2014
In-Reply-To: <20140414094139.a41e5a76f06d90ef255b5a241771595e.69734568b9.wbe@email01.secureserver.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 16:44:35 -0400
From: "Bellerophon, modeler" <bellerophon.modeler@gmail.com>
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
--===============8496758918865746943==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bacbaaa5d411304f706c0dd
--047d7bacbaaa5d411304f706c0dd
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 12:41 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
> Perhaps I'm wrong here, but when Kruge finds out that Valkris has seen
> the Genesis tape, and he says {vaj Daleghpu'} "then you have seen it," I
> don't get the sense that he means "you saw it all the way through" or
> "you finished seeing it." He means "you looked at it, you saw what it
> contains."
>
> Thinking about it, perhaps this IS a good example of perfective aspect:
> she saw it, and he's treating the act of seeing as a single, completed,
> whole. Not completed as in she saw the whole thing, but completed as in
> she looked at it and then stopped looking at it.
Not just that. Having seen it, she couldn't unsee it. Although the
perfective aspect doesn't imply irreversibility, the completion of an
irreversible action is definitely a suitable occasion for perfective aspect=
.
> > A verb with a time stamp and without a Type 7 suffix also tells you tha=
t
> > > the verb is not completed and is not continuous.
> > >
> > > {wa'Hu' yaS qIp puq} CANNOT mean "yesterday the child hit the officer=
"
> as
> > > a single act. That would be perfective, completed, a simple whole, an=
d
> > > would require -pu' or -ta'. It CAN mean "yesterday the child hit the
> > > officer [on and off]."
> > >
> >
> > Are you asserting that the lack of an aspect marker implies the aspect =
of
> > ongoing, discontinuous action? Then must we say {meQtaH qach} as oppose=
d
> to
> > {meQ qach}, to make sure the listener understands that the house is not
> > burning intermittently?
>
> No to the first question, and a qualified yes to the second. TKD says at
> the beginning of the section on Type 7 verb suffixes=E2=80=94and I'm
> paraphrasing here, because my TKD isn't with me=E2=80=94that verbs withou=
t a
> Type 7 suffix are not continuous and are not completed.
Close to an exact quote. It says, "The absence of a Type 7 suffix usually
means that the action is not completed and is not continuous (that is, it
is not one of the things indicated by the Type 7 suffixes)." Meaning, I
suppose, either that the action is neither ongoing nor complete in the
sentence, or that the action isn't of the sort that requires the speaker to
denote aspect. The word "usually" gives an out, however. Klingon allows the
speaker to omit much of what context makes clear, which could include
aspect.
> So if we say {meQ qach}, it CANNOT mean "the building is burning in an
> ongoing manner," and it CANNOT mean "the building burned and completed
> burning." It might mean "the building burns" as a statement of its
> predilection to catch fire (e.g., "buildings burn; they do, in fact,
> burn").
As in, "I just lit a rocket. Rockets explode." But predilection might
require {-laH}: {meQlaH qach}. Or not, if context makes it clear to the
listener. Or one might say {meQ 'op qach}.
Here is another can of worms. Aspect includes not only completion and
continuation of action, but also its inception and resumption, which are
denoted by Type 3 verb suffixes. Are these compatible with Type 7 suffixes?
For instance, what would ?{bIDachtaHvIS, Duj yImuItlhchoHpu'} mean? "While
you were away, I started to construct a ship," or, "While you were away, I
started and finished constructing a ship." Or is it just bad Klingon?
~'eD
--=20
My modeling blog: http://bellerophon-modeler.blogspot.com/
My other modeling blog: http://bellerophon.blog.com/
--047d7bacbaaa5d411304f706c0dd
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On M=
on, Apr 14, 2014 at 12:41 PM, SuStel <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailt=
o:sustel@trimboli.name" target=3D"_blank">sustel@trimboli.name</a>></spa=
n> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-=
left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;p=
adding-left:1ex">Perhaps I'm wrong here, but when Kruge finds out that =
Valkris has seen<br>
the Genesis tape, and he says {vaj Daleghpu'} "then you have seen =
it," I<br>
don't get the sense that he means "you saw it all the way through&=
quot; or<br>
"you finished seeing it." He means "you looked at it, you sa=
w what it<br>
contains."<br>
<br>
Thinking about it, perhaps this IS a good example of perfective aspect:<br>
she saw it, and he's treating the act of seeing as a single, completed,=
<br>
whole. Not completed as in she saw the whole thing, but completed as in<br>
she looked at it and then stopped looking at it.</blockquote><div>=C2=A0</d=
iv><div>Not just that. Having seen it, she couldn't unsee it. Although =
the perfective aspect doesn't imply irreversibility, the completion of =
an irreversible action is definitely a suitable occasion for perfective asp=
ect.</div>
<div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0p=
x 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-lef=
t-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
> > A verb with a time stamp and without a Type 7 suffix also tells y=
ou that<br>
> > the verb is not completed and is not continuous.<br>
> ><br>
> > {wa'Hu' yaS qIp puq} CANNOT mean "yesterday the chil=
d hit the officer" as<br>
> > a single act. That would be perfective, completed, a simple whole=
, and<br>
> > would require -pu' or -ta'. It CAN mean "yesterday t=
he child hit the<br>
> > officer [on and off]."<br>
> ><br>
><br>
> Are you asserting that the lack of an aspect marker implies the aspect=
of<br>
> ongoing, discontinuous action? Then must we say {meQtaH qach} as oppos=
ed to<br>
> {meQ qach}, to make sure the listener understands that the house is no=
t<br>
> burning intermittently?<br>
<br>
No to the first question, and a qualified yes to the second. TKD says at<br=
>
the beginning of the section on Type 7 verb suffixes=E2=80=94and I'm<br=
>
paraphrasing here, because my TKD isn't with me=E2=80=94that verbs with=
out a<br>
Type 7 suffix are not continuous and are not completed.</blockquote><div><b=
r></div><div>Close to an exact quote. It says, "The absence of a Type =
7 suffix usually means that the action is not completed and is not continuo=
us (that is, it is not one of the things indicated by the Type 7 suffixes).=
" Meaning, I suppose, either that the action is neither ongoing nor co=
mplete in the sentence, or that the action isn't of the sort that requi=
res the speaker to denote aspect. The word "usually" gives an out=
, however. Klingon allows the speaker to omit much of what context makes cl=
ear, which could include aspect.</div>
<div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px =
0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-l=
eft-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">So if we say {meQ qach}, it CANNOT mean &=
quot;the building is burning in an<br>
ongoing manner," and it CANNOT mean "the building burned and comp=
leted<br>
burning." It might mean "the building burns" as a statement =
of its<br>
predilection to catch fire (e.g., "buildings burn; they do, in fact,<b=
r>
burn").</blockquote><div>=C2=A0</div><div>As in, "I just lit a ro=
cket. Rockets explode." But predilection might require {-laH}: {meQlaH=
qach}. Or not, if context makes it clear to the listener. Or one might say=
{meQ 'op qach}.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Here is another can of worms. Aspect includes not only =
completion and continuation of action, but also its inception and resumptio=
n, which are denoted by Type 3 verb suffixes. Are these compatible with Typ=
e 7 suffixes? For instance, what would ?{bIDachtaHvIS, Duj yImuItlhchoHpu&#=
39;} mean? "While you were away, I started to construct a ship," =
or, "While you were away,=C2=A0I started and finished constructing a s=
hip." Or is it just bad Klingon?</div>
</div><div><br></div><div>~'eD</div>-- <br>My modeling blog:=C2=A0=C2=
=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 <a href=3D"http://bellerophon=
-modeler.blogspot.com/" target=3D"_blank">http://bellerophon-modeler.blogsp=
ot.com/</a><br>My other modeling blog:=C2=A0 <a href=3D"http://bellerophon.=
blog.com/" target=3D"_blank">http://bellerophon.blog.com/</a><br>
</div></div>
--047d7bacbaaa5d411304f706c0dd--
--===============8496758918865746943==
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
--===============8496758918865746943==--
