tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Mar 05 09:25:59 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Aspect
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Aspect
- Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 12:25:50 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
- Priority: NORMAL
On Thu, 4 Mar 1999 22:19:05 -0800 (PST) [email protected] wrote:
> ============================
> 1) perpetual vs. continuous; non-stop vs. ongoing:
>
> Are you just trying to see if I will get belligerent in this discussion? Or
> do you misread TKD to quote to me? Or do you really misunderstand what you
> are reading?
>
> You have correctly quoted TKD p43. No problem. But, you have skirted the
> issue entirely regarding KNOWing that the Aspect suffix {-taH} does or does
> not mean that the ongoing action is perpetual. What we know from your quote
> of TKD p43 is that the action is ongoing whether there is a known goal or not.
> We still do not KNOW if the action is perpetual. charghwI's earlier message
> to which I was responding implied KNOWing that the action need not be
> perpetual.
Simple. Okrand has used {-taH} a few times and you'd be hard
pressed to stand on a podium and declare that every single one
of them referred to perpetual action. This is a really old
argument quite settled.
> 2) Maybe your just trying to test me. On this listserv there have been many
> messages about "intermittent" action. Some talked about the answer being
> {-taHbe'}. A lot of these messages appeared shortly after HolQeD 6.4. Dec.
> 1997. (See pp2-7).
"Continuous" does not imply "perpetual". I'm sure your
dictionary can help you find the difference.
> peHruS
charghwI' 'utlh