tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Apr 15 00:35:24 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC:Re: My first try at tlhIngan Hol KLBC
Engelbert wrote:
Hi Qov,
Thanks for overlooking my homework. It became clear to me that the
linguistic notions "tense" and "aspect" are two completely different
things and that I was mixing them up. Yet, I don't seem to understand
the use of {-pu'} completely.
> Qov wrote:
> >*Maassluis* jIDabpu'.
>{M. vIDab} "I lived in M." The place inhabited is the object of
{Dab}. No
> perfective.
> > }No perfective because from the context (I moved to Amsterdam) it is
> > }clear that I don't live in M. anymore?
> No perfective because the tense you want is simple past.
> You have something stuck in your head that tells you to use the perfective
> for anything completed in the past.
You're right, and that "something" is my native tongue. I cannot say "Ik
woonde in Maassluis" (simple past, or imperfective: I lived in M., and I
possibly still do) if I mean "Ik heb in Maassluis gewoond" (perfective:
I lived in M., but not anymore). It's not grammatically incorrect, but
it doesn't sound natural. You can do this in English, though.
Another "something" that tells me this might be TKD, which states:
"(about the suffix {-pu'})
This suffix indicates that an action is completed."
Nothing less, nothing more.
> If the point of the verb is on the
> completion, be it past, present or future completion, use the perfective.
> If the point is the action of the verb, be that action in the past present
> or future, don't use the perfective.
There's a third point, and that's the point I seem to be missing. Is
there something I overlooked in TKD or maybe KGT?
I hope you can help me out. Some examples maybe?
Thanks.
QomwI'