tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Nov 14 10:09:23 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Type 7 suffix and {-jaj}
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Type 7 suffix and {-jaj}
- Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 12:47:03 -0500
-----Original Message-----
From: Anthony.Appleyard <[email protected]>
To: Multiple recipients of list <[email protected]>
Date: Friday, November 14, 1997 9:58 AM
Subject: Re: Type 7 suffix and {-jaj}
> "David Trimboli" <[email protected]> wrote:-
>> ... If verbs with {-jaj} never take an aspect suffix (TKD pp. 175-6), how
>> come we can say {wo' DevtaHjaj ghawran} (KGT p. 26)?
>
>Perhaps when Marc Okrand wrote that TKD rule, he thought "{X-jaj} means
that I
>wish X would happen, therefore X is not happening already now or there
would
>be no point me wishing. {X-taH} means that X is happening now (or at the
>current running narration point). Therefore {X-taHjaj} contradicts itself
and
>is impossible.", not realizing until later that {X-taHjaj} could make sense
>and mean "X is happening; I wish X would keep on happening.".
There's no reason to assume that a wish is in the present tense. {wo'
DevtaHjaj ghawran} could very well mean "May Gowron continue to lead the
Empire [a year from now]." And in the right circumstances it could even
refer to an event in the past.
As far as I can tell, the no aspect on a {-jaj} verb was either completely
arbitrary, or was done to backfit to some Star Trek line with {-jaj} in it.
SuStel
Stardate 97872.0