tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jun 23 16:37:41 2012
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Time and Type 7 verb suffixes
<p>ghunchu'wI':<br>
>> > I can think of one immediately: {nughoS jagh} from the Conversational<br>
>> > Klingon battle vignette.</p>
<p>De'vID:<br>
>> I don't see this as a counterexample at all.</p>
<p>ghunchu'wI:<br>
> You're begging the question.</p>
<p>No, I think you're misinterpreting the sentence, and I gave you reasons why I think this.</p>
<p>ghunchu'wI':<br>
> The canonical translation is "The enemy is approaching."</p>
<p>Are you seriously suggesting that the meaning of the English translation takes precedence over the actual description of Klingon grammar, as well as the surrounding Klingon sentences, when interpreting a Klingon sentence? There are tons of examples where the English translation matches the Klingon rather loosely.</p>
<p>That sentence can be translated that way, or it can be translated as "the enemy approaches us", or in any number of ways. SuStel has already addressed this in detail.</p>
<p>The point here is precisely that the English translation may be misleading, because English naturally expresses tense while Klingon naturally expresses aspect, and the two things are not the same. </p>
<p>For example, suppose a child is ill, and you take him to a doctor. In English, the doctor typically asks, "Is he eating?" In Klingon, the doctor wouldn't ask {SoptaH'a'?}, because he's not interested in whether the child is in-the-process-of-eating. He'd ask, {Sop'a'?}, because he's asking whether the child has a propensity towards eating (in his present condition). Does that mean "Is he eating?" is the translation of {Sop'a'?} Absolutely (in this context). Does it means that {Sop'a'?} expresses continuous aspect? No, it doesn't. </p>
<p>ghunchu'wI':<br>
> You have to ignore that in order to dismiss it as exactly the kind of counterexample that was requested.</p>
<p>No, I'm not ignoring that that sentence *can* be translated that way. I'm pointing out that even when it is translated that way, it's *not* expressing continuous aspect. You've been misled by the English translation. </p>
<p>If you think that the Klingon sentence {nughoS jagh} expresses continuous aspect, you'll have to explain why you think that such a sentence in between {tujqu'choH QuQ} and {chay' jura'} cannot be describing an action which is neither continuous nor completed. I've given you a scenario where the sentence makes perfect sense interpreted in just that way. </p>
<p>In *English*, the sentences "he is eating" or "the enemy is approaching us" do not *necessarily* express continuous aspect. In Klingon, {-taH} always does. For example, if the enemy ship was heading away but suddenly turned toward us, the tactical officer can alert the captain *in English* by saying, "Enemy ship is approaching us." This *looks* like it might be a sentence expressing continuous aspect, but it *isn't*. In Klingon, in that context, it *cannot* be {nughoStaH}. It has to be {nughoS} or {nughoSchoH}.</p>
<p>In the context of a battle where the captain is presumably aware of the enemy's position, if the tactical officer thinks it's important enough to interrupt the captain to tell him {nughoStaH jagh} (and not get himself vaporised), the translation might be something like "the enemy is *still* approaching us." {nughoS jagh} *can* be *translated* as "the enemy is approaching us", but *in context*, neither the Klingon sentence nor the English translation conveys continuous aspect.</p>
<p>ghunchu'wI':<br>
> The lack of a Klingon continuous suffix in this example is the whole point! The idea expressed would not change if the suffix were present.</p>
<p>Now *that* is begging the question. If the idea expressed does not change, how do you explain why {-taH} was dropped? </p>
<p>Your example doesn't contradict the claim that {-taH} isn't optional. Properly understood, it actually shows that its absence is meaningful.</p>
<p>ghunchu'wI':<br>
> That's what was asked for, right?</p>
<p>No, it wasn't.</p>
<p>I'm now all but convinced that the people who insist that SuStel is wrong really just don't understand what he is claiming.</p>
<p>I didn't come into this discussion (or fight or whatever it is) to take his side. In fact, if you go back through the threads you'll see that I was initially skeptical of his claim. </p>
<p>He described a verb lacking Type 7 suffixes as indicating propensity or habit, which sounded wrong to me. I also don't really follow the business about timelines. But when he went through example sentences and explained what he thought they meant and why, his explanation almost always matched my intuition as well as my conceptual understanding of aspect. </p>
<p>Now, we could just be both wrong, but as far as I can tell, his claim amounts to "when MO uses the word 'aspect', he really means what linguists mean by that term (even though he simplifies things for a popular audience)". That's it. Given that MO is a linguist writing for non-linguists, why is this assumption considered so unreasonable? </p>
<p>SuStel has been accused of reading things into TKD that aren't there, but it seems to me that the people who claim his interpretation is wrong have invented a rule that Type 7 suffixes are optional, in direct contradiction to what TKD actually says. How do you go from the absence of a Type 7 suffix (usually) indicating that an action is neither completed nor continuous (what TKD actually says) to Type 7 suffixes being completely optional? Those two rules are not logically remotely the same. </p>
<p>And that's what this is really about: logic. SuStel might have gotten his definition of aspect from an external source, but the reason that aspect works the way it does is because the expression of aspect has an intrinsic logic to it that every language must obey, even Klingon, if it is to remain unambiguous and expressive. </p>
<p>You can introduce a rule into a language that says aspect markers are optional, and that the absence of an aspect marker signifies nothing about that aspect. But if you do, the *logical* consequence of this is that your language will have no easy way to express a concept lacking all of the aspects that the language explicitly marks. </p>
<p>If {Ha'DIbaH Sop} means "he eats meat or he's eating meat or he has eaten meat", then to say "he eats meat (habitual)", you'd *have* to say {Ha'DIbaH Sop 'ach SoptaHbe' 'ej Soppu'be'}, and so on, depending on context. There's no evidence that Klingon works like this. </p>
<p>{Ha'DIbaH Sop} means "he eats meat (generally, i.e., in a non-completed and non-continuous way)". It *can* be translated as "he's eating meat" in some contexts. For example, in response to the doctor's query, {Sop'a'?} "is he eating?" But *this* "he's eating meat (habitual)" and the "he's eating meat (continuous)" of {Ha'DIbaH SoptaH} are actually two different things in Klingon, despite having the same English translation. Similarly, {nughoS jagh} "the enemy is approaching us" is *not* a sentence with continuous aspect, despite having the same possible English translation as {nughoStaH jagh}.</p>
<p>The way I see it, the rule that Type 7 suffixes are optional directly contradicts TKD, and for some reason you've adopted this rule and are misinterpreting Klingon sentences to fit it. SuStel's proposal may or may not be how Klingon works, but as far as I can tell it really is logically compatible with TKD and canon.</p>
<p>--<br>
De'vID</p>
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
[email protected]
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol