tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jul 24 20:00:35 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
KLBC: Pronoun + Aspect
- From: "Neal Schermerhorn" <[email protected]>
- Subject: KLBC: Pronoun + Aspect
- Date: Fri, 25 Jul 97 02:44:05 UT
SuStel:
One area of Klingon grammar I am a bit sketchy on is the use of aspect on
pronoun-as-verb constructions. I would appreciate any criticism you may have
on my interpretations.
If I were to say, "I am a sabateur", I would use SorghwI' jIH. This would give
no implication of aspect. SorghwI' jIHpu' is of course "I have been, but no
longer am, a sabateur (but not necessarily on purpose!)" while SorghwI' jIHta'
implies that I was a sabateur on purpose.
SorghwI' jIHtaH is "I am a sabateur, and was before and continue to be", while
SorghwI' jIHlI' is "I am being a sabateur to achieve a particular result".
These are fairly clear to me.
Now comes "I am on the ship". Saying DujDaq jIHtaH is the only canonical way I
have seen to say this - what would be the implications of DujDaq jIH? With NO
aspect? I don't think we have canon to go by (do we?), but to me it says that
I am on the ship now (or at the time indicated by an adverbial) - not
necessarily before, and not necessarily later. And not necessarily
purposefully, either - I am just there. (wejHu' DujDaq jIH would mean "Three
days ago, I was on the ship" with no indication as to my purposefulness or how
long I was there - I may have simply beamed thru its transporter and
immediately to another location, without really 'being' there in the sense
-taH would suggest.)
DujDaq jIHlI' is then "I am purposefully on the ship" - DujDaq jIHpu' = "I
have been on the ship" and DujDaq jIHta' = "I succeded at having been on the
ship." (Maybe a bit awkward on this location, but perhaps more meaningful in
mID HopDaq jIHta' = "I succeeded at having been at the remote colony")
rut pabvaD jImIS - chaq DaH mumISbe'taH.
qatlho', SuStel.
Qermaq