tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Mar 05 09:43:45 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 12:43:43 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
- Priority: NORMAL
On Thu, 4 Mar 1999 22:00:22 -0800 (PST) [email protected] wrote:
...
> The pairing with {-pu'} "perfective" is there. But, the definition of {-ta'}
> does not classify it as a "perfective." You alone are doing that.
>
> peHruS
What happened to your committment to post 2/3 of your messages
using the Klingon language? I feel like we have once again been
pelted with dozens of snippets tearing at the language like an
immature jackel trying to find a piece of flesh soft enough to
tear away.
I just reread the section on the perfective discussing {-pu'},
{-ta'} and {rIntaH} and it is so overwhelmingly obvious
throughout the section that Okrand is saying that {-ta'} is
exactly the same thing as {-pu'}, except it adds the sense of
intentionality, of goal:
**************************************************************
{luHoHta'} they have killed him/her...
[This] sentence above could not be used if the killing were the
result of a general attack not intended to kill a specific
person or if the killing were an accident. In such cases, {-pu'}
would be used:
{luHoHpu'} they have killed him/her
**************************************************************
qatlh bIqay'?
charghwI' 'utlh