tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Mar 06 09:53:36 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Aspect
[email protected] writes:
>In a message dated 3/4/1999 9:06:29 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
>[email protected] writes:
>
><< >I've been hoping that the aspect marker {-taH} does not mean that the
> >absolutely must be perpetual, just ongoing. But, how do you KNOW?
>
> How do we KNOW? TKD page 43:
> | The suffix {-taH} "continuous" can be used whether there is a
> | known goal or not.
>
> >Still, if I say: {qaStaHvIS vagh jajmey, matlhutlhtaH}, would not the
>Klingon
> >inference be that we drank non-stop day and night until all five days had
> >passed?
>
> I wouldn't focus on a "non-stop" idea, just an "ongoing" one. If you want
> to say something about non-stop, you should probably go ahead and *say* it:
> {matlhutlh 'e' wImevbe'.}
>
> >If this is true, we have not yet settled the problem of "intermittent"
>action.
>
> To exactly what problem of "intermittent" action are you referring?
> >>
>============================
>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?
nuqjatlh? (Or, to borrow a line from "A Piece of the Action": Whadth?)
I don't understand what you're saying here well enough to misunderstand
it, much less respond to it. What misreading? I quoted TKD verbatim.
I did not give any interpretation of it, so I could not possibly have
misinterpreted it. Since you accuse me of misreading something after
I merely quoted it -- correctly, as you admit -- I must consider that
you indeed are getting belligerent.
>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.
I am shaking my head in frustration and disbelief. I skirted no issue.
I addressed the question directly. I will now demonstrate in painfully
minute detail exactly how TKD tells us that the aspect suffix {-taH} is
not an indication that the action absolutely must be perpetual.
Once again, TKD page 43: "The suffix {-taH} "continuous" can be used
whether there is a known goal or not." You agree that I have correctly
quoted it. You repeated it in your response. Now let's look at the
last half of the phrase: "...whether there is a known goal or not."
That means that the suffix {-taH} can be used if there is a known goal.
If there is a known goal, there is an implied stopping point. If there
is a stopping point, the action is not implied to be neverending. If
the action is not neverending, it eventually stops. If the action stops,
it is not perpetual. {-taH} can be used if the action is not perpetual.
{-taH} does not say the action must be perpetual. That's how we KNOW
that the aspect marker {-taH} does not mean that the absolutely must be
perpetual, just ongoing.
Is that sufficiently detailed for you? If it is not, please either tell
me at exactly which step you have a problem, or just shut up and go away.
Do *NOT* simply disagree or say I'm misinterpreting something without
pointing to the logical step or assumption that you think is faulty. I
will say it again: Do *NOT* simply disagree or say I'm misinterpreting
something without pointing to the logical step or assumption that you
think is faulty.
>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).
I have absolutely no clue as to why you brought it up in this discussion.
You apparently still are holding some sort of misapprehension that other
people know what you are thinking, and why you are thinking it, when you
say something. There was no indication whatsoever about what you were
referring to when you said "If this is true, we have not yet settled the
problem of 'intermittent' action." And I don't see what this so-called
"problem" has to do with the question of whether {-taH} indicates that
an action must be neverending.
Just so you don't lose track of what I have said here, I'll repeat the
main point. TKD tells us, in what I think is a very clear statement,
that the verb suffix {-taH} does not have to mean that the action is
perpetual.
-- ghunchu'wI'