tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Apr 14 14:22:48 2014
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Translating the past
> Subject: Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Translating the past
> > Thinking about it, perhaps this IS a good example of perfective aspect:
> > she saw it, and he's treating the act of seeing as a single, completed,
> > whole. Not completed as in she saw the whole thing, but completed as in
> > she looked at it and then stopped looking at it.
>
>
> Not just that. Having seen it, she couldn't unsee it. Although the
> perfective aspect doesn't imply irreversibility, the completion of an
> irreversible action is definitely a suitable occasion for perfective aspect.
It's suitable for what TKD calls a perfective aspect, but not
necessarily for what linguists would call perfective aspect. The two are
not identical.
> Close to an exact quote. It says, "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)." Meaning, I
> suppose, either that the action is neither ongoing nor complete in the
> sentence, or that the action isn't of the sort that requires the speaker to
> denote aspect. The word "usually" gives an out, however. Klingon allows the
> speaker to omit much of what context makes clear, which could include
> aspect.
Yes, there's a "usually" there, but the "usually" doesn't let you just
ignore the rule whenever you like. If you're not USUALLY following the
rule, you're doing it wrong.
Okrand usually follows this rule, and it's what has confused some
people, who learned NOT to follow this rule.
In any case, Klingon does not give cart blanche to just omit stuff
because you think the listener's gonna get it anyway. There are rules as
to when you can clip Klingon, and how it's done (it typically involves
clipping the prefix). You can't just ignore the rules in the name of
clipping.
> > So if we say {meQ qach}, it CANNOT mean "the building is burning in an
> > ongoing manner," and it CANNOT mean "the building burned and completed
> > burning." It might mean "the building burns" as a statement of its
> > predilection to catch fire (e.g., "buildings burn; they do, in fact,
> > burn").
>
>
> As in, "I just lit a rocket. Rockets explode." But predilection might
> require {-laH}: {meQlaH qach}. Or not, if context makes it clear to the
> listener. Or one might say {meQ 'op qach}.
Predilection is not the same as ability. I may be ABLE to do something,
but that does not mean I'm PREDISPOSED to doing it.
I'm not trying to find a way to say that buildings can, might, or do
burn; I'm just explaining what kind of situation might be appropriate to
use these words without an aspect suffix.
> Here is another can of worms. Aspect includes not only completion and
> continuation of action, but also its inception and resumption, which are
> denoted by Type 3 verb suffixes.
Quite correct.
> Are these compatible with Type 7 suffixes?
> For instance, what would ?{bIDachtaHvIS, Duj yImuItlhchoHpu'} mean? "While
> you were away, I started to construct a ship," or, "While you were away, I
> started and finished constructing a ship." Or is it just bad Klingon?
There are no rules against it, and such questions have come up in the
past, though the participants usually didn't realize they were speaking
about aspects. Such sentences are usually ambiguous, and probably not
wise unless the meaning is clear. For instance, in your sample sentence
(use vI- instead of yI-), if I meant "I started to construct a ship,"
I'd say {Duj vImutlhchoH} (I wasn't constructing a ship, and then I
was.) If I meant "I started and finished constructing a ship," I'd say
{Duj vImutlhpu'}, because -pu' can mean what linguists call perfective,
treating an action as a simple unit without internal structure. I did
it; it's done. There is no sense of a change of state here.
{Duj vImutlhchoHpu'} might mean "I finished starting to construct a
ship." I probably wouldn't say it this way, though.
--
David Trimboli
http://www.trimboli.name/
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol