tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Apr 08 10:37:39 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

{-ta'} vs {-lI'}



>     I went back to TKD 4.2.7 on this and I can't agree with you. It says
>that both {-taH} and {-lI'} state that the action of the verb is continuous.
>"Unlike {-taH}, however, {-lI'} implies that the activity has a known goal
or
>a definite stopping point." I don't think this requires intent. 

I would think that an action performed or occuring with a specific goal in 
mind would be intentional. It does indeed indicate a stopping point, but it
also expresses the subject's intent.

>     I see where you are coming from, given that the next sentence in TKD
is,
>"In other words, it suggests that progress is being made toward that goal."
>Still, Okrand was so much more explicit about intent in describing the
>difference between {-pu} and {-ta'} in the same section of TKD that I find
it
>difficult to believe that he would be so weak in expressing that same
>difference in the presence or absence of intent between {-taH} and {-lI'}.

You seem to have neglected the key sentence to the analogy: "It is possible
to
consider {-lI'} a /continuous/ counterpart of {-ta'}, and {-taH} a
/continuous/ counterpart of {-pu'}." (TKD, 4.2.7, pg.43, emphasis not added).
Here Okrand demonstrates the analogy that the correlation between {-lI'} and
{-ta'} is the same as that between {-taH} and {-pu'}. To better show this
correlation, I'll plot the aspect markers onto a chart that indicates their
correlative meanings:


Klingon Aspect Markers

            Unintentional  Intentional

Continuous:     -taH           -lI'

Completed:      -pu'           -ta' (rIntaH)


But this chart also shows anther analogy: The relationship between {-taH} and
{-lI'} is the same as that between {-pu'} and {-taH}. Thus {-lI'} does
express
intent.

>     I'm open to other opinions, and will attempt to lean toward your
>interpretation of this more now than before you expressed it, but I can't
>quite buy into it by your argument alone at this time.

>charghwI'

I hope this has helped to sway your opinion somewhat. If you still don't
completely agree, keep in mind that I derived this chart from own Okrand's
own
written word.


Guido#1, Leader of All Guidos



Back to archive top level