tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Feb 10 21:33:41 2012
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Type 7 verb suffixes (was Re: nuq bop bom: 'ay' wa'vatlh wejmaH vagh: <potlh QonoS>)
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 9:58 PM, David Trimboli <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2/10/2012 9:30 PM, ghunchu'wI' 'utlh wrote:
>> Here's what TKD says about {-pu'} "perfective":
>>
>> "This suffix indicates that an action is completed." [page 41]
>>
>> It does not say the suffix refers to the entire action from start to
>> finish. I don't see any reason to infer that it does.
>
> Except that Okrand calls it "perfective,"
What do you mean, "except"? That's what I called it too, because
that's what the {-pu'} suffix is labeled as.
> and that's what perfective means:
> an action that is viewed as a completed whole.
I still don't see where you're finding a reference to "whole". As I
said at first, you're obviously reading more into it than it says. I
have no further comment on that.
>> I'm not following this at all. To me, "I have eaten" doesn't say
>> anything about being full, nor does it imply that the eating is being
>> considered as a complete whole. All it means to me is that I finished
>> eating before saying it.
>
> No, "I have eaten" is perfect tense, not perfective aspect, so it doesn't
> describe something completed. You would only say "I have eaten" when you
> mean "I ate something earlier."
"No"?? You just repeated essentially what I said. If you're inferring
some nuanced difference between "I ate before saying it" and "I ate
something earlier", I assure you I don't intend one.
> I used being full as an example context in which you would say it, not that
> it is necessarily part of the meaning of the sentence. "I have eaten"
> doesn't say you're full; you would only say it if you're full, or at least
> not hungry because of prior eating.
That sounds quite contradictory to me.
All I can do at this point is let you know that "I have eaten" has no
implication of fullness, satiation, or lack of hunger for me. I would
have no problem with saying "I've eaten, but I'm still famished."
>> When I say "I ate", I am not intending to
>> imply that I finished anything in particular. And I most certainly
>> WOULD say "I ate one bite of an apple."
>
> But (a) one bite of an apple is not an apple, and (b) I didn't give the
> sentence "I ate <something>"; I used the sentence "I ate."
(a) Huh? I didn't say it was, and I don't know why it would make a
difference. For the purposes of discussing the grammar of "I ate", "I
ate one bite of an apple" and "I ate an apple" are completely
equivalent.
(b) True. You said "take one bite" intead of "eat one bite". However,
if by "take one bite" you didn't mean the same thing as "eat one
bite", then I fear I am misunderstanding you even more than I thought
I was.
> I'm not just
> talking about the verb inflection here; you have to consider the manner in
> which you would use the sentence.
The manner in which *I* would use the sentence is exactly parallel to
my use of the sentences "I eat" and "I will eat". When I say "I ate",
I'm not trying to imply completion. I'm just expressing past tense.
You obviously would use the sentence differently, but that doesn't
make my use incorrect.
> So no, if you just had one bite of an apple, you wouldn't subsequently
> inform someone "I ate." That is used to indicate you've eaten to your
> satisfaction. You might say "I ate a piece of apple," but not "I ate."
You're wrong. I WOULD say "I ate" in that context. When I use the verb
"to eat" I do not necessarily mean to imply a meal, or even a
satisfying snack. I usually just mean I put something in my mouth and
swallowed it. I am willing to accept that your own association of
"eat" with satisfaction leads you to label as a perfective what I
consider simple past tense. I am NOT willing to change my own
definitions to match yours.
> For information on perfective vs. perfect:
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfective_aspect#Perfective_vs._perfect>
When I tripped over the phrase "'I ate yesterday' is perfectly
grammatical" in a paragraph talking about the confusion between
perfect and perfective, I concluded that the paragraph was written to
be humorous and stopped taking it seriously. I do not consider
Wikipedia to be an authoritative source of information anyway; at
best, it's a helpful introduction to a topic with pointers to more
reliable (and less capricious) sources. I also don't really think
trying to understand the way Greek or Latin or even English makes such
distinctions is relevant to my use of Klingon. I believe that if I go
by what Okrand wrote, I'll be using Klingon appropriately.
-- ghunchu'wI'
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
[email protected]
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol