tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jul 26 14:21:10 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: Pronoun + Aspect
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: Pronoun + Aspect
- Date: Sat, 26 Jul 97 20:58:42 UT
[email protected] on behalf of Neal Schermerhorn wrote:
> 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.
And you are correct about them.
> 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?
Then you're simply not specifying whether the action is ongoing, or completed.
There's nothing wrong with it.
> I don't think we have canon to go by (do we?),
None that I can find.
> 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.
A lack of an aspect suffix does not mean the action is not continuous or
completed. It simply means that information is not specified. In regular
verbs this isn't so weird, because there are visible results. {yIjun} "take
an evasive maneuver!" {yIjuntaH} "Evasive action!" But because you cannot
command someone to simply "be" in Klingon, this distinction won't show up.
(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.)
No. It simply means you were there -- never mind how long or for what
purpose. You could have eaten dinner there, but you haven't specified.
> 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")
I think we've seen {-taH} and {-pu'} on pronouns, so I presume we can also
have {-lI'} and {-ta'}. However, if you're having this much trouble, perhaps
you should use a verb instead of a pronoun.
mID HopDaq jISaHta'
I was present at the remote colony. It's over with, and I was there on
purpose.
Try not to rely too heavily on pronouns. Klingon uses them as a necessity,
but not happily. Don't use them as verbs more than you need to.
> rut pabvaD jImIS - chaq DaH mumISbe'taH.
"Sometimes I am confused for the sake of grammar -- maybe now he is not being
confused me."
Wanna try that again?
--
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 97568.4