tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Aug 25 15:47:23 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.)

peHruSvaD jang ghunchu'wI', jatlh:


>ja' peHruS:
>>An action that is not completed is imperfective, no??????
>
>I don't know what "imperfective" is in the context of the Klingon language.
>I would merely say that an action that is not completed is not perfective.
>Bringing in an extra-TKD term seems likely to cause more confusion than it
>can clear up.
>
>>It need not be continuous to be imperfective, only not perfected.
>
>I also don't know what you mean when you use the word "perfected".  If you
>mean something other than "completed", please explain it.
>
>>This is the trouble.  HovqIj (with pagh's support) are arguing the other
way
>>around.  They are saying that there was an excellent use of perfective
>>following the adverbial {wej} because an anticipated completion was "not
yet"
>>completed but would be (sometime in the future).
>
>The use of {wej} was, and is, irrelevant to the appropriateness of the use
>of {-pu'}.  Forget the {wej} completely.  The perfective suffix was praised
>because it was referring to a completed action.  {wej} had nothing to do
>with it.
>
>>They were saying that {wej}
>>made the perfective aspect of the verb "negative," rather than taking the
>>opposing aspect, i.e., imperfective.
>
>NO.  Read the relevant notes again.  Nobody said anything about {wej}
>modifying the meaning of the perfective aspect.

qar ghunchu'wI'. peHruS, bIlaDHa'ba'pu' qoj bIyajHa'ba'.

>{wej} is merely setting
>the time context for the sentence.
>
>>I am not saying that perfectivity cannot be realized in the future.  It
can.
>>I am saying that I "feel very strongly" that {not yet} is CONTINUNG
through
>>the time we are looking at the situation.
>
>{wej} is certainly not a "continuous" aspect marker.  It is not an aspect
>marker of any sort.  It is an adverbial word that indicates that the action
>in the sentence did not yet happen, is not yet happening, or has not yet
>happened.  The aspect of the action is completely unrelated to the "not
yet"
>character of the action.  "Not yet" closely approximates a *tense* marking,
>not an *aspect* one.
>
>>The state of a sentence that is
>>not yet complete is "still" imperfect, therefore imperfective.
>
>You are quite definitely still trying to understand Klingon grammar by
>applying what you know of Chinese grammar.  Klingon {wej} does not have
>an automatic connection of {-pu'be'}.  It is not like Mandarin "mei-you"
>and "-ne" at all.
>
>>buy' ngop.  DuSaQ'a' HolQeD vIghojqa'.  DaHjaj taghpu'.
>
>wejpuH.  DumISmoHlaw' neH ben HolQeDHey DaHaDbogh.  Qapjaj DuSaQ'a'vam.
>
>

Hoch jatlhchu' ghunchu'wI'.

HovqIj

Back to archive top level