tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Apr 15 11:43:34 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: "Qo'noS ta'puq, Hamlet lotlut. lut 'ay' wa', lut 'ay'Hom
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: "Qo'noS ta'puq, Hamlet lotlut. lut 'ay' wa', lut 'ay'Hom
- Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 14:36:43 -0400 (EDT)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> from "Jarno Peschier" at Apr 13, 96 12:31:40 pm
According to Jarno Peschier:
>
> >> ghItlh peSHIr:
> >> >DaHjaj pawpu' paqna' chovnatlhwIj 'e' vIparHa'qu'.
> >>
> >> paqwIj je vIHevpu' 'ej jIQuch jIH je. rap qechwIj 'ach puj pabvam.
> >>
> >> By using the verb suffix {-pu'} on the verb {paw}, you imply that the
> >> book had already arrived when "today" occured. Its arrival appears to
> >> be complete at the time the events in the rest of the sentence occur.
> >
> >While I agree that {-pu'} is often overused, sometimes I think
> >your watchdog-like loyalty to the ideal of extinguishing the
> >overuse of {-pu'} is too easily triggered. If he meant, "My
> >book arrived today," then he should not have used {-pu'}. If he
> >meant, "My book has arrived today," then {-pu'} was perfectly
> >appropriate. Maybe we should just ask?
>
> Well, for once and for all:
> - The book here that morning.
> - I wrote the sentence late that afternoon.
> - I meant "My book has arrived [earlier] today". (=the act of arrival was
> completed by the time I wrote that).
>
> Is my use of -pu' then in error or not?
I think it is okay. It comes down to the subtle difference
between what in English would be stated either as, "My book
arrived today," or "My book has arrived today." The first is
not perfective. It is simple past. The second is present
perfect, and so is perfective. As you've stated in English, you
used present perfect, which is perfective and the {-pu'} is
appropriate.
ghunchu'wI' is quite good at using Klingon and has a good point
that beginning Klingonists often use the perfective when they
mean to use simple past and that useage is indeed wrong, but I
feel like he is a bit fixated on this and is not recognizing
that the present perfective does exist and sometimes people use
it on purpose and it is not always wrong.
I feel like he has created his own strict and not altogether
accurate definition of what perfective is and demands that
everyone else accept that definition. The difference between
tense and aspect is a bit strange and confusing, but there
really is a difference and as ghunchu'wI' rightly points out, a
lot of people use the perfective to replace simple past tense.
The problem I'm seeing with ghunchu'wI' in this argument is
that he seems to imply that the past perfect is the only valid
perfective, or maybe he include the future perfect, but he does
not seem to allow the present perfect to be acceptable.
> Qapla'
> peSHIr
> Jarno Peschier, [email protected], 2:2802/245.1@Fido
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |