tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Feb 24 07:40:28 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: aspect suffixes
- From: Marc Ruehlaender <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: aspect suffixes
- Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 09:39:53 CST
- In-reply-to: Your message of Wed, 24 Feb 1999 01:16:28 -0800
> << And you're quite right, there are no explicit references to Klingon past
> tense, perfective or otherwise...for the simple reason that there is no
> Klingon past tense to refer to.
> >>
>
ja' peHruS:
> Actually, TKD p41, section 4.2.7 does say explicitly that {-pu'} is
> "perfective." p167 says "perfective" again.
>
actually, you misread the sentence you quoted.
read "no references...to Klingon" past perfective or past other.
> It seems that I am missing some discussion on (not verbatim) "a time stamp
> stays in place until another time stamp is introduced." Also, I had not hear
> d
alright. you repeat all your relevant time stamps at the beginning
of each Klingon sentence. go ahead. linguistically this is fine.
socially, I suspect, it could get you killed (by "real" Klingons...)
> that using the "perfective" in a statement that was already inferred to be
> occurring in the past changed the whole sentence into a "past perfect" or
> "pluperfect." What issues of HolQeD or what forum revealed these ideas to
> you?
>
look, if you really want to know, go to your local library, get some
books about tense, some books about aspect, read them, try to under=
stand the two concepts and how they are different from each other.
then go back to TKD and try to interpret Okrands explanation in a
manner that is most practical. then come back with your questions.
I'd be willing to help you with the first part (getting tense and
aspect straight) but not being a trained linguist myself and seeing
how you keep missing the point when it's explained here on the list
(and in the FAQ), I doubt I'd be very successful.
Marc Ruehlaender
aka HomDoq
[email protected]