tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Aug 03 12:54:52 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: Aspect (was RE: KLBC-Fr.)

On Tue, 3 Aug 1999 01:08:45 -0400 [email protected] wrote:

> ...You see, in Chinese 
> Mandarin, "not yet" (hai mei-you) is always present imperfective and usually 
> ends with the imperfective particle (-ne).

It sounds like (hai mei-you) is some kind of verb then? {wej} is 
not. Instead, it is an adverbial in the same way that {DaH}, 
{qen} and {tugh} are adverbials. All of these terms gives the 
sentence its time stamp. In fact, I would consider this set of 
adverbials to be the closest thing to tense that Klingon is 
likely to get. {DaH} is fairly dependable in establishing 
present tense. {tugh} and {wej} are equally dependable at 
establishing future tense. {qen} is the new addition to the set, 
establishing a form of past tense.

That is not to say that these adverbials are the same thing as 
tense. Past tense includes past much earlier than "recently" and 
the future tense includes far more temporally distant times than 
"soon" and less vague and expectant than "not yet". The present 
tense can include a range of time less immediate than "now". 
Still, I do consider these adverbials to have the incidental 
effect of giving us time stamps that are a limited, functional 
equivalent to simple tense.

These things function as tense in the same way that {-lu'} can, 
within limited contexts, function as passive voice. They are not 
the same thing. On a Venn Diagram, these are intersecting 
circles that each have area not touched by the other circle, but 
the area of intersection is significant.

> 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.

While much of Klingon is indeed as simple as has been recently 
posited here, the hardest part is letting go of the rules that 
other languages teach us we should be following when we use 
Klingon, since Klingon doesn't follow most of these rules.
 
> 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.

Well, you've explained this before, but there was still quite a 
bit of confusion remaining. My sense is that your concept of 
aspect in Klingon is somewhat unstable. Sometimes it agrees with 
others and sometimes it flows back into your understandings of 
aspect from Chinese.

This would not be a problem, except that when it flows back into 
the Chinese and differs from our generally accepted 
understanding of aspect, you "correct" people and an argument 
ensues. Dependably.

If the topic arose in the form of "Could we go over aspect 
again?" there would be less angst than if it arose in the form, 
"You've just misused aspect!" It has more to do with attitude 
than content.
 
> jItlhIj.

jIHvaD qay'be'.
 
> peHruS

charghwI'

Back to archive top level