tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jan 12 19:42:29 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
aspect
I should make an apologetic withdrawl of my assault on the string of messages
on -taH, etc. It was unwarranted, or at least not very diplomatic of me. The
source of the major rebuttal against it certainly utilized his wisdom of
diplomacy.
But in recollection of our spat on "-moHlu'", the word "fun" is not at the
top of my list to describe that episode of Klingana. Altho, I'm glad I
provided you the pleasure.
As terrible as it is to feel intellectually opposed by everyone, that feeling
is not as absolute here as I had thought (hoped. So I can't justify my
outburst, hence the apology); thank goodness. Marc Ru"hla"nder (pong
vIghItlhchu' vIneH) brought up almost all of the points that were useful to
support my opinion.
In a tenseless language, we can deal with aspect freely. The perfectives -pu'
and -ta' describe action that is completed. It is independent of time frame,
so one may use them to talk of something that happened in the past, or that
hasn't even happened yet. It really doesn't matter. -ta' is more specific in
that it describes an event that is completed as a goal, something someone set
out to do. (See Okrand).
What the continuous aspect conveys is essentially incompletion of an event.
As Marc R. clarified, there is the ambiguity of whether an action is habitual
or isolated. "I get up at eight" versus "I am getting up at eight". In these
two cases, "still" is added to convey a more specific meaning, a new
connotation.
I read Okrand as saying that -taH indicates an event that is a process of
some kind. Specifically, an isolated event, not habitual. It is worth noting
that Okrand uses -taH for isolated events. "It is approching", "Take evasive
action (imperative)".
be'nallI' DaqIptaH'a'? To me that is perfectly answerable with HIja' or
ghobe'. As is, "Are you hitting your wife?"
Note also Okrand's remark at the end of the section on aspect, that -taH
could be considered a continuous counterpart to -pu', and -lI' could be
considered a continous counterpart to -ta'. Both -lI' and -ta' are used when
a goal is in mind. In the case of -lI', the potential completion of the event
is definite, whereas for -taH it is indefinite. But both indicate an as yet
incomplete event.
This aspect setup has parallels in Russian, which makes the
complete/incomplete distinction, and Esperanto, which makes these two and a
third 'not-yet-begun' distinction. French makes the habitual vs isolated
distinction in the past tense (passe compose vs imparfait), which seems to
require a perfective vs aorist/continuous distinction when translating into
tenseless langs.
But don't take my word for it. The only way to really get a feel for a thing
so organic as language is to swim around in it, to experience it more than to
observe it under a microscope.
Speaking of which, I think I'll have a nice chunk from Reival's log to post
in a few days. Expect it.
Guido