tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Apr 10 01:26:40 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: {-ta'} vs {-lI'}
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: {-ta'} vs {-lI'}
- Date: Sun, 10 Apr 94 13:22:20 EDT
>Guidovo':
>...
>> 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).
>charghwI'vo':
> Gee. I guess you're right. Yes. I am convinced. Thank you for yet
>another enlightenment.
And yet, Qanqor writes:
>As I built up my list of things-I'm-gonna-respond-to-today, it
>turned out that they were all directed at Guido. {{:-)
>>To me, both {-taH} and {-lI'} describe continuous action. But {-lI'} is
only
>>used to indicate that the subject is in the process of doing something *as
>>part of his/her/its intention*, viz., consciously performing an action.
>>{-taH} tends to imply that the subject's intentions are not important or
that
>>the event is happening without anyone's true intention.
>Mmmmm, I'm not in full agreement with this. It is not at all clear
>that it is the *subject*'s intentions which are important. Consider
>the example right there in 4.2.7 about the missile getting closer to
>the target. Leaving aside arguments about it being some kind of
>guided missile, the basic truth is that the *missile* has no intent
>at all, it's just flying along. It was the person who had aimed the
>missile who had the intent. The only real requirement for -lI',
>then, is progress being made towards some finishing point. Also,
>-taH seems to be entirely neutral as to finishing point or intent.
>I don't think it is in any way a true statement that "-taH tends to
>imply... that the event is happening without anyone's true
>intention." To quote from 4.2.7, "The suffix -taH *continuous* can
>be used whether there is a known goal or not."
>But the other question is whether intention has anything to do with
>it or not. Suppose we're standing around at the base of a cliff,
>and I notice a rock which has become dislodged from the top and is
>plummetting downward. Can I say this?
>pumlI' nagh "The rock is falling."
>I say I can. The action has a definite stopping point-- the moment
>when the rock hits the ground and stops. Yet there is no
>intentionality anywhere. There is no goal. But there is definitely
>progress being made towards a specific end-state. I would claim
>that my use of -lI' here instead of -taH simply calls attention to
>that end state. Granted, I'm sure this is a somewhat atypical case,
>but it definitely fits the guidelines given us for -lI'.
You know, he's so right, it's sickening. *This* has swayed my opinion. I
don't know
how charghwI''s opinion is going to be affected by this. Krankor's profound
reasoning here will probably sway his opinion too.
Altho, just keep in mind that TKD says "goal", which is not necessarily the
same as
an "ending-point".
Guido#1, Leader of All Guidos