tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Aug 02 22:00:51 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Aspect (was RE: KLBC-Fr.)
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: Aspect (was RE: KLBC-Fr.)
- Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 01:00:14 EDT
In a message dated 7/31/1999 7:20:12 AM US Mountain Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:
<< Using {wej} sets the time-frame to a point
in the future. (Yes, future.) The completion (indicated with {-ta'}) will
happen in the
future. >>
===============
I'm beginning to see some of the confusion. You think that completion can
occur in the future. So do I. However, to you the adverbial {wej} sets the
time in the future. To me {wej} is occurring now, even though the event can
reach completion in the future. Perhaps one of the problems is that I went
to college in the same language Marc Okrand, Pam Brown and I used in the
hallway together Friday evening at the qep'a' javDIch. You see, in Chinese
Mandarin, "not yet" (hai mei-you) is always present imperfective and usually
ends with the imperfective particle (-ne).
While I will unreservedly admit that Klingon is not Chinese, is not based on
Chinese, and is not even like Chinese, I will have to struggle with my
confusion arising from my thinking in Chinese much of the time, English the
rest of the time.
Now I realize why you folks think differently from me regarding aspect. I
learned aspect first in respect to Chinese Mandarin, a language which does
not have tenses, only aspect. Later, at San Francisco State University I
learned in English the definitions and usages of aspect mostly as it applies
to Chinese Mandarin, not so much to other languages.
jItlhIj.
peHruS