tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Aug 09 22:54:24 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Aspect (was RE: KLBC-Fr.)
ja' peHruS:
>If everyone accepts ONLY TKD 4..7, fine! But I am getting a lot of flak from
>people saying that there are several attachments to what TKD says. I see
>posts stating that aspect used in a dependent clause establish that the
>dependent clause was "complete" before the main clause.
If that's how you're reading those posts, I think you're reading something
into them that isn't there. You seem to be invoking a past tense idea with
your use of the words "was" and "before". I think it would be more correct
to say that aspect in a dependent clause establishes that the action in the
dependent clase *is* complete *at the time of* the the main clause's action.
That's not anything from outside TKD. That's just what perfective means,
as defined on page 41.
>I see posts stating
>that storytellers must use perfective only if the event was complete prior to
>the beginning of the story.
Again, you're saying this as if the idea of past tense is important. I can
agree with storytellers using perfective only if the event *is* complete
*when* the action in the story takes place. That's consistent with what
perfective aspect represents.
>This extra baggage has been rampant since the
>discussions regarding Klingon aspect began.
The only "extra baggage" I see is your consistent casting of what you claim
are the addenda in terms of past tense, using words like "before" and "prior".
You also tend to use phrasings that suggest that you're treating completion
as an event. I can't tell whether that's really how you think of it, but it
is obviously how you talk about it.
>And, just as frustrating is... whenever I use aspect only, no tense
>references whatsoever, in Klingon posts, you are one of the first to berate
>my usages.
I'm likely one of the first to read your notes with a critical eye. It's
not a personal vendetta, I assure you. I just find your usage confusing.
I used to ask for clarification in Klingon, but that never actually gave
me any clearer understanding of what you were trying to say. Now, I have
come to recognize a common pattern of using perfective aspect in the main
clause but not in the dependent clause, and I occasionally try to point out
why I think it doesn't mean what you intend it to.
But I'm lost when you say "no tense references whatsoever, in Klingon...."
Klingon doesn't *have* tense references as such, and I know you know that!
What are you trying to say?