tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Feb 25 06:14:06 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

• Index by Date
• Index by Thread
• Index by Author

[tlhIngan-Hol] Re: KLBC: default aspect?

David Trimboli ([email protected])

• From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
• Subject: [tlhIngan-Hol] Re: KLBC: default aspect?
• Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 09:13:24 -0500
• References: <[email protected]> <a05100300bc61d73711e4@[10.0.1.15]>

From: "Alan Anderson" <[email protected]>

> ja' lay'tel SIvten:
> >with suffixes for perfective aspect (-pu', -ta') and continuous (ie
> >imperfective) aspect (-taH, -lI'), what is the aspect of unmarked verbs?
>
> It's unspecified.  Without context, it could be anything.

According to TKD:

"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)." (TKD 4.2.7)

SuStel
Stardate 4152.2

• References:
  • [tlhIngan-Hol] Re: KLBC: default aspect?
    • From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: [tlhIngan-Hol] Re: (tulwI' ) Hol chenmoHwI'
• Next by Date: [tlhIngan-Hol] Re: a matter of interpretation
• Previous by thread: [tlhIngan-Hol] Re: KLBC: default aspect?
• Next by thread: [tlhIngan-Hol] Re: «law'qu'» rur «'Iq». «puSqu'» rur nuq?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level